Four criteria distinguish a minority from the dominant mainstream group of white Americans: (1) visible differences from the mainstream; (2) differential power; (3) differential and pejorative treatment (discrimination); and (4) group awareness (Dworkin & Dworkin, 1999). In addition to the various nonwhite and ethnic groups, older persons, the disabled, and the obese also meet some of the criteria of disadvantaged groups. Attention to diversity tends to pay off. Between 1986 and 1992, organizations recognized by awards from the U.S. Department of Labor for having excellent affirmative action programs showed greater increases in stock prices after the award than they had experienced before. Those settling lawsuits for discrimination showed losses in stock prices following the news. According to a survey of 242 employees in an office of a federal agency, in general, the diverse groups do not share a common culture. Each group, including both men and women, organizes its experience differently (Fine, Johnson, & Ryan, 1990). Socially, as they have assimilated, they have been able to increasingly identify as both Americans and members of a minority. Differences among the races in attitudes and values tend to be social rather than genetic. There is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them (Tomes, 2004).
The racial and ethnic composition of the American workforce is continuing to change. The Hispanic population gained 9.8% in a little over two years between 2000 and 2002 and became the largest minority of 38.8 million, passing the 36.6 million African American population, which grew only 3.1%. The 12.7 million U.S. Asian minority also grew fast at 9.0%, compared to the 200 million whites, who increased by only 0.7% (Armas, 2003). An important factor in this population growth has been immigration, which has increased the diversity of race and ethnicity. In California and Florida, there are now fewer whites than nonwhites. Pursuing diversity has become an important organizational goal for three reasons: (1) diverse insights and skills are potentially valuable resources; (2) diversity enables organizations to gain legitimacy and access to diverse markets, and (3) fairness and avoidance of discrimination are moral imperatives (Slay, 2003). But diversity has its costs. It is both an emotional issue and an intellectual one. It can be divisive and a cause of conflict among leaders and followers (Cox & Beale, 1997). Until the mid–twentieth century, assimilation into the mainstream was generally sought by diverse minorities. But increasingly, there is an effort of those not in the mainstream to honor their racial or ethnic roots and to maintain some of their traditions.
There is much diversity within the various groups. Black Americans vary from purely Negro African ancestry to almost purely white European forebears. They may be partly American Indian. Their ancestors may have arrived as slaves from 1619 on, or they may be recent immigrants from Africa, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or Jamaica or from elsewhere in the West Indies. Hispanics or Latinos include Mexican Americans (Chicanos), Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, and Central and South Americans. Asian Americans range from Koreans to Vietnamese. American Indians come from more than 500 tribes. The disabled include both the physically disabled and the mentally impaired.
The Current Situation in America. Affirmative action regulations inhibit gross discrimination in hiring, promotion, and benefits for disadvantaged minorities and women. Yet there remain subtle and sometimes not so subtle biases when leaders and followers are of different races and ethnicities. Biases may be automatic, unintentional, and unconscious when we compare people like “them” with people like “us.” Intergroup biases create a hostile environment for out-groups with “awkward social interactions, embarrassing slips of the tongue, unchecked assumptions, stereotypic judgments, and spontaneous neglect.” Stereotypes are primed. Open hostility is not expressed, but in-group comfort and out-group discomfort are felt. Liking and respect are missing (Fiske, 2002). Research by Heilman, Block, and Stathatos (1997) suggested that affirmative action hires are stigmatized as less competent. Some minority department chairs in educational institutions complain that because of lack of respect for them (1) they are not taken seriously, (2) they face continuous end runs to higher administration, (3) their initiatives are blocked, and (4) all discussions with them are reduced to routine business (E. Smith, 1996). Often the biases against another race or ethnicity are mixed, both favorable and unfavorable, associated with the perceived competition and status of the out-group (Fiske, 2002, p. 124). Because of earlier experiences of unfair treatment, minority subordinates have greater expectations than subordinates in the mainstream majority of being treated unfairly by their superiors and are more likely to reject rational explanations for perceived discrimination (Davidson & Friedman, 1998). Organizations differ in how much their human resources policies and practices comply with affirmative action and equal opportunity legislation. Lawsuits and compliance reviews are highest for organizations lacking identity-conscious policies and practices. Such organizations also have the lowest percentages of disadvantaged minorities and women (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995).
The Rising Status of Minorities. Thousands of African Americans have sought and been elected or appointed to public office. They have been mayors of Los Angeles; Detroit; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Philadelphia; Atlanta; New Orleans; and New York City. Hispanics have achieved similar success in San Antonio, Miami, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. Black general officers are no longer unusual. Blacks are taking leading roles in sports, entertainment, and the Democratic Party, and served in high-ranking positions in Republican administrations. Ethnics, blacks, Asian Americans, and Indian Americans serve in the U.S. Senate and state governorships. Blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and members of ethnic minorities have achieved prominence as political, governmental, business, and professional leaders. But in comparison with mainstream Americans, members of these minority groups face systematic differences in the likelihood of their emerging as leaders and the probabilities of their success. Minorities are underrepresented in top management in business. In 2003, although they comprised 27% of all personnel, only 3% of blacks or women occupied senior executive positions (Bell, Gilley, & Coombs, 2003). But diversity may have unexpected effects on decision making. For instance, 26 new Internet-based ventures developed with “ethnic presence” in their teams were more likely to pursue strategies as prospectors than did 26 matched mainstream teams (Chaganti, Watts, Chaganti, et al., 2003). Firms such as Allstate Insurance may turn diversity to comparative advantage by maintaining a highly diverse organization to link their business to their diverse customer base. Such firms can better understand, attract, and handle the needs of customers outside the mainstream (Wan, 1999).
Affirmative Action. It is clear that the pressure of legislation promoting equal employment opportunities has brought marked increases in employment and advancement of women and minorities. But organizations differ in the extent to which their human resources management practices are fully supportive of affirmative action. As noted before, according to Konrad and Linnehan (1995), the practices of less supportive firms are revealed in both fewer women and minority members and a history of more lawsuits and legal bouts with government equal opportunity regulators.
Research on Leading Diverse Groups. Diversity of organizations’ personnel has increased substantially, but leadership research in the past has been concentrated on white leaders and white followers (Offerman & Gowing, 1990). Most of the research on leadership on minorities has dealt with blacks as leaders or subordinates. Considerably less has been done with Hispanic, Asian American, and other racial and ethnic minorities. There is also a dearth of information on the movement of Jewish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Greek Americans, American Indians, and other minorities into top-level positions of leadership, although highly visible members of these groups continue to appear in industry, government, education, and nonprofit organizations. Much of the available diversity research hinges on objective demographic diversity, which has weaker effects than the subjective sense of being a member of a particular race and ethnicity and the value and emotional significance of that membership (Phinney, 1990). Initially, ethnically diverse teams, compared with nondiverse teams, may have different perspectives about the same issue. They may perform less adequately due to greater difficulties in coordination (Cox, 2003). This tends to dissipate over longer periods of time (Wagner, 1995). Watson, Johnson, and Merritt (1998) found more self-orientation than team orientation in ethnically diverse student problem-solving groups. Such teams remained more self-oriented over time. Nevertheless, the ethnically diverse teams, “regardless of the extent of cultural diversity, … learn to perform better with periodic feedback about performance and how to improve interpersonal processes for better performance” (p. 185). Sensitivity to race or ethnicity may disappear with time in a supervisor-subordinate relationship as both become accustomed to each other, especially if the relationship becomes a high-quality exchange.
In 2002, the 815 hotel workers in the Washington Hilton spoke 36 languages. About 65% were foreign-born (Offer-man & Phan, 2002). Diversity is a challenge to their supervisors. Mayo, Pastor, and Meindl (1996) found that diversity in race, age, sex, and tenure in 68 work groups, combined with poorer performance, resulted in the leaders’ loss of feelings of self-efficacy. Although diversity may enhance the social processes of a group, more often, according to Williams and O’Reilly (1998) who reviewed the results of 80 studies, it had adverse effects on social processes. Reskin, McBrier, and Kmec (1999) reached a similar conclusion in their review. More specifically, Foley, Linnehan, Greenhaus, et al. (2003) reported that racial dissimilarity of subordinates and supervisor was likely to reduce family-supportive supervision. Vecchio and Bullis (2001) collected surveys from 2,883 U.S. Army officers and noncoms about the leadership of their officer supervisors, who ranged in rank from second lieutenant to general. An analysis focused on the demographic similarity of each subordinate rater and rated supervisor. The respondents included 23% blacks, 13% women, 12% Hispanics, 3% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 2% American Indians and Eskimos. The officer supervisors were 13% black, 10% female, 9% Hispanic, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indians and Eskimos. Female and Hispanic supervisors received slightly less favorable ratings than did their male and non-Hispanic counterparts. A stronger effect emerged when it was found that white subordinates were least satisfied under nonwhite supervisors. Managing diversity needs to be part of an organization’s reward structure.
Based on interviews with managers and executives, a review of the literature, and their own experience in various organizations, Joplin and Daus (1997) detailed six “preeminent” challenges confronting leaders of a diverse workforce:
1. Changes in power. Mainstreamers may try to bolster and retain power at the expense of promoted minority newcomers. Leaders must avoid showing favoritism. Mainstreamers may feel an erosion in their power. They may feel less attached and committed to the organization and more uncertain about how they fit in. They may become more negative in attitudes if forced to attend diversity training. Tensions increase as minorities gain voice and express opinions.
2. Diversity of opinions. Leaders must be prepared for the exponential increase in the number and range of perspectives of a workforce with an increased range of values and norms. Leaders need to be able to recognize the different frames of reference of minority members. They need to synthesize diverse opinions and get to the crux of issues, while maintaining the respect and dignity of their diverse constituents. Visible disdain must be avoided.
3. Perceived lack of empathy in the leader. Leaders must sense the feelings of others and anticipate reactions to proposals. They must understand “where others are coming from, what they have been through, and where they are going” (p. 41).
4. Real and perceived tokenism. An organization with tolerant policies will find it less necessary to fill quotas rather than hiring and promoting based on candidates’ merits. It will achieve fair representation through active recruitment in diverse categories. Perceived tokenism is likely to be greater in intolerant organizations that hire to fill quotas, causing more resentment and attributions of failure to race or ethnicity.
5. Participation. Minority participation needs to be encouraged to capitalize on new, different, and creative ways of thinking. Leaders need to ensure than everyone has a voice in reaching solutions to problems. This will require a lot of a leader’s time.
6. Overcoming inertia. The leader needs a strong and clearly communicated vision and goals. If the organization is in a state of intolerance of diversity, the leader needs to communicate the advantages of diversity. If diversity is already appreciated, the leader needs to integrate ideas into implementation plans and action to avoid relapses into inertia and malingering.
Supervisory support for equal opportunity affects majority and minority groups differently. The majority look on their supervisors more favorably if they feel their supervisor does not support equal opportunity. The minority are more favorable if they feel their supervisor supports equal opportunity. Over time, satisfaction of subordinates with their supervisor drops if they are different in race. Tsui and Reilly (1989) reported that demographic dissimilarity between supervisor and subordinate resulted in less supervisor attraction to the subordinate, lower supervisor rating of the subordinate, and more role ambiguity for the subordinate. In New Zealand, Chong and Thomas (1997) noted that dissimilarity between whites and Maoris produced less satisfied followers. On the other hand, Wright, Ferris, and Hiller (1995) compared organizations that had won awards for affirmative action programs with organizations that had had to settle discrimination lawsuits. The stock prices of those that had promoted diversity increased in the days surrounding the awards, while the stock prices of those having to settle discrimination lawsuits declined. Simmons and Nelson (1997) found that the performance of 30 firms identified as “better for minorities and women” was slightly better than their industry average for the years 1985 to 1994. Clark and Clark (1994) proposed that for an organization to benefit from diversity, common ground and true integration needed to be established and overtly supported by its leadership. Organizational support for diversity for 90 solo minority managers correlated .37 with job satisfaction and –.31 with intention to quit. Solos were the lone representatives of their race or ethnicity in their work group (Wagner, Rosek, DePuy, et al., 2001).
Military Integration. In 1948, President Truman ordered the integration of the U.S. military. In 1973, a worldwide leadership survey was completed by the U.S. Army in each of its major commands (Penner, Malone, Coughlin, et al., 1973). Data were obtained by asking about one third of the 30,735 respondents to complete a written questionnaire describing the leadership of their immediate superior; another third, to complete a questionnaire describing the leadership of one of their immediate subordinates; and the final third, to complete a questionnaire describing their own leadership. In addition to various demographic items and a single measure of satisfaction with the overall performance of the individual described, the questionnaire used in the study included a list of 43 specific items of behavior that are commonly observed in U.S. Army leaders. About half these 43 behaviors were derived fairly directly from the SBDQ and LBDQ. For each behavior, three questions were asked: “How often does he … ? ”, “How often should he … ? ”, and “How important was this to you?” The first question was a measure of perceived actual performance; the second, a statement of expectations; and the third, an indicator of the criticality of the behavior according to the respondent. Surveyed were the differences among supervisors’, self, and subordinates’ overall satisfaction with U.S. white and nonwhite field-grade officers and company-grade commissioned and senior and junior noncommissioned officers.
All but the junior noncoms gave higher evaluations to white than to nonwhite leaders, while the subordinates did the reverse, favoring nonwhites. Self-ratings of satisfaction were generally the same for whites and nonwhites. White and nonwhite field-grade officers differed in the list of behaviors that correlated most highly with how satisfied they were with their own overall performance. The list for nonwhite field-grade officers contained seven negative items to be avoided. The list for white field-grade officers contained only one such negative item of behavior. Thus, in evaluating themselves, the nonwhite field-grade officers were satisfied with their own overall performance if they avoided doing negative things such as “hesitating to take action,” “failing to show appreciation for priorities of work,” or “making it difficult for subordinates to use initiative.” On the other hand, the white field-grade officers were satisfied with their own overall performance if they did positive things such as “being technically competent to perform their duties,” “seeking additional and more important responsibilities,” and “being aware of the state of their unit’s morale and doing all they can to make it high.” The investigators attributed this difference to the discrimination experienced by the nonwhite officers in the 1950s and early 1960s when they first entered service, when it was more important for non-white officers to avoid making mistakes than it was for them to stand out in a positive manner. Consistent to some degree with these results, Sackett and DuBois (1989) combined civilian data from U.S. firms with military data and found that both nonwhites and whites gave lower ratings to nonwhites.
Networking of Minority Managers. Revealed wisdom suggests that corporate advancement depends on whom you know as much as what you know. Minority managers are seen to have more difficulty gaining support (Thomas & Alderfer, 1989). Minorities’ advancement is handicapped by their exclusion from social networks (Morrison & Van Glinow, 1990). To study this issue, Ibarra (1995) examined the contacts outside their business unit of 17 minority middle managers (12 black, 3 Hispanic, and 2 Asian American) with a survey and interviews, and compared them with the contacts of 46 white middle managers. Altogether, 20 were women, but sex was statistically controlled when the results were extracted. Compared to white managers, minority managers felt that networking was less important to their advancement. The managers reported more racially mixed networks but fewer intimate ones. Minority managers with high potential balanced same and cross-race contacts rather than being dominated by whites. They had more contacts outside their groups.
Effects of Marginality. Marginality can be an asset. A marginal person who lives at the boundary of two world-views has two ways of looking at problems and of finding answers to them. The acculturation of black or Hispanic subordinates to the mainstream varies. High “biculturals” have their feet planted firmly in both the mainstream and the minority. According to an experiment by Carza, Romero, Cox, and Ramirez (1982), high biculturals, whether they are Chicano (Mexican American) or black, attempt more leadership in simulated, nonsupportive groups with a mix of Chicanos, blacks, and whites if they are externally oriented. They ask for more opinions and evaluations and make more clarifying remarks. But minority status may be a liability. Lovelace and Rosen (1996) compared perceptions of a group of 157 white, 35 black, and 24 Hispanic of the managers’ organizational fit. The blacks perceived themselves as significantly lower in fitting into the organization than did the whites and Hispanics. Poor fit was correlated with job dissatisfaction, intention to leave, and more stress.
Marginality as a source of stress was seen by Ford (1985), who analyzed job stress in five empirical studies of black, American Indian, and Mexican American professionals and found that they experienced more job stress than their white counterparts. They experienced less stress when supervised by nonwhites and when given emotional and structural support.
Diversity can be effective if it is well managed (Adler, 1990). Well-managed top-management teams with diversity in members can achieve greater performance and cohesion (Elron, 1997). Creativity can be increased by using people from different perspectives. Turnover can be reduced among minorities with good leadership (Cox & Blake, 1991). To lead and manage a diverse workforce, constituency, or organizational membership, and to avoid hindering follower performance, leaders need to identify and understand what disturbs individuals from minority backgrounds. They need to appreciate the stress and conflict that may be created in multicultural settings of implicit and explicit organizational policies. These negative influences need to be removed (Mai-Dalton, 1993). Findings from 200 interviews and surveys of 450 employees by Gordon and Loden (1989) suggested that in addition to awareness of multicultural issues, management needs to be open to change and actively create opportunities for minority employees. They need to be ethically committed to fairness and to mentoring and empowering minority employees, and need to be models and catalysts for organizational change. Offerman and Phan (2002) added that leaders need to facilitate implementation of diversification policies and the flow of information, set high expectations, provide for continuing education and training, and watch out for backlash from mainstreamers. Pastors of urban churches support diversity by (1) raising awareness of diverse racial and ethnic groups in the organization; (2) using cognitive dissonance between biases and brotherhood; (3) providing expertise and credibility in introducing change; (4) providing a voice for different stories; and (5) connecting experience with transcendental vision.
Cultural Competence. Management of diversity calls for cultural competence: attitudes, practices, and policies that respect different cultures and people. Culturally competent leaders seek advice and consultation from diverse racial and ethnic groups and communities and actively incorporate the information into their behavior and commitment (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, et al., 1989). Such leaders are able to leave behind intelligent behaviors learned in one cultural context for what is intelligent in a new context (Offerman & Phan, 2002). Del Castillo (undated) associated transformational leadership with cultural competence. The transformational leader appreciates and adapts to the diversity of followers, and understands her or his own culture and the dynamics of cultural differences.
Programmatic Efforts. Ellis and Sonnenfeld (1994) noted that brief “one-shot” contacts to propagandize for diversity may hinder rather than help manage diversity by reinforcing stereotypes, hostility, and misunderstanding of other races and ethnicities. They listed eight programmatic approaches that firms have used to encourage and support diversity: (1) multicultural workshops; (2) meetings on a monthly basis to confront stereotypes and personal biases; (3) minority support groups, networks, and advisory councils that report directly to senior management; (4) reward systems for training and promotion of minorities; (5) fast-track programs for minorities who demonstrate exceptional talent and potential; (6) mentoring of minorities by senior managers; (7) corporate announcements of appreciation; and (8) commitment to diversity. Few evaluations of the effects of these approaches have appeared.
Allstate Insurance is an example of a program that enhanced diversity relations and its effects. When employees join Allstate Insurance they receive the message, accompanied by an informational booklet, that they can expect to enjoy a bias-free environment. In the 1960s and 1970s, the emphasis was on assimilating differences. In 1993, it became a strategic initiative to accept differences and to incorporate them into all business processes. This initiative increased Allstate’s customer base and satisfaction. Twenty-five percent of the merit pay or compensation of leaders at all levels is tied to their upholding diversity in their workplace or business unit. A diversity index asks respondents to what extent (1) quality service is delivered to customers regardless of their background; (2) respondents are treated with respect and dignity at work; (3) their managers and team leaders seek out and utilize the diverse backgrounds and perspectives in their group; (4) they observe insensitive behavior at work such as inappropriate comments or jokes; and (5) they work in an environment of trust (Anonymous, 1999).
Chen and Van Velsor (1996) suggested that diversity leadership needs to consider the impact of sociopsychological processes and minority group identities embedded in organization group identities. DiTomaso and Hooijberg (1996) point to the need for leaders involved in managing diversity and multiculturalism to remain conscious of their effects on various racial and ethnic groups and to provide role models. The leaders need
To create bridges, channels, pathways, connections, perhaps “safe passages” for those who have been hindered, excluded or constrained from participating to maximum effect, and they … [ought to] … require the same of other organizational leaders. They [should] be inclusive, while expecting and then supporting superior achievement. (p. 170)
Strategic planning and initiatives should take diversity into account. Structures should be adapted to enable equal access to the organizational networks. Ethical considerations need to be kept in mind.
Caveat. Fairholm (1994a) declared that leadership is impossible outside of a community of individuals with shared values and vision. Leaders need not accept unreservedly the values of every racial and ethnic group. Instead, they need to use the mainstream American culture as a foundation on which to build the basis for their leadership. E pluribus unum—one from many. Much is held in common by Americans, regardless of their diverse group identities. For instance, according to overt integrity tests of 724,806 job applicants, although women scored higher than men, age and racial or ethnic identity made little difference in scores (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998). Leaders need to create unity out of diversity. Similarities, not differences, need to be highlighted. A leader needs to create a group that is more than just an amalgam of diverse views. The leader needs to bring the followers together in a common work culture to fit “the work done and the character and capacities of the stake-holders to the benefit of all concerned. … Leaders create a set of group values that supersede organizationally inappropriate ones and replace them with values all can accept and work under” (p. 88). Leaders build unified groups from diverse individuals in alignment with organizational goals (Fairholm, 1994b). Since 2006, in order to win the presidential election in 2008, the Democratic Party has been asked to appeal more to the common economic and social interests of both the mainstream and minorities.
A system of prejudice has built up over the centuries. Although socially and politically we have agreed to get rid of this system, its effects still linger, often in subtle ways. A supervisor may fail to see what he is doing to a black employee or black fellow manager. … In turn, the African American may feel prejudice from the supervisor when it is not present. (Bass, Cascio, & McPherson, 1977)
Of minorities in America, black Americans have been among the most negatively stereotyped (T. W. Smith, 1990). Blacks in the United States are not members of another culture. Rather, they form an American subculture that is tied to the majority white cultural institutions without clear boundaries to mark off their society from the larger white society (Liebow, 1967). Increasingly, their norms and values are influencing the majority culture, and vice versa. Blacks have adopted the cultural patterns of the dominant white society (Baldwin, Glazer, Hook, et al., 1966). The social groups they identify with are American and black. Being black and being American has significance both emotionally and in values. They span two worlds (Slay, 2003). Unlike other minorities, African Americans’ perceptions of family, friends, society, love, work, and money are fairly similar to those of white Americans. Blacks and whites are psychocultur-ally close (Cunningham, 1984). In fact, Pinkney (1969) found that middle-class blacks tended to overconform to white middle-class standards of behavior. As Bass, Cascio, McPherson, and Tragash (1976) noted, in a study of 315 managers’ responses to a racial awareness questionnaire, many agreed that the “system” is biased against blacks and that blacks are still often excluded from the mainstream. Even potential black leaders may restrict themselves. Thus Gump (1975) found that black female college students were more likely to see their future roles as wives and mothers, whereas white female college students were oriented more toward their own career development than toward fulfilling the traditional woman’s role. But this has changed with the large increase in black women attending college and seeking careers.
Among 359 black executives surveyed by E. E. Jennings (1980), 45% still believed that racial prejudice was the most important impediment to further progress in their careers. Nevertheless, the legacy of the master-slave relationship is giving way—by fits and starts prompted by war, civil strife, civil rights legislation, and education—to the rise of a large number of black Americans into positions of leadership. By 2007, two blacks were successively U.S. secretaries of state. The CEO of TIAA, the country’s largest nonprofit organization, is black. The 359 black executives in Jennings’s (1980) survey were located primarily in large organizations, mainly in manufacturing, real estate, insurance, or finance. They performed the same organizational functions that provide for the faster advancement of whites: marketing, manufacturing, and finance. Their higher education and personal contacts were important to their being recruited.
Experimental, observational, and survey research lags behind the changes in attitudes and behavior since the 1940s resulting from desegregation, the civil rights movement, affirmative action, and the increased visibility of blacks in politics, athletics, and entertainment. Moreover, the scant research that was available prior to the mid-1960s is of less relevance to an understanding of the attitudes and behavior of minorities and whites in the twenty-first century. For example, consider Goode and Fowler’s (1949) finding that the tough, autocratic, punitive supervisor was most effective for maximizing productivity among marginal1 predominantly black workers in a Detroit bumper-grinding and polishing shop. Today, large numbers of African Americans are present in the work-force, including in manufacturing, service, sports, education, government, law enforcement, and the armed forces. Black line workers, army privates, teaching assistants, and government personnel would not expect nor accept white leadership that was overtly coercive. Black women have almost reached parity with white women in employment and earned income, and proportionately surpassed white male students in entering higher education. Nevertheless, 30% of black men are unemployed or not in the labor force. One of seven has spent time in prison.
The Gallup Poll Social Audit (1997) interviewed by telephone a nationally representative sample of 1,269 blacks and 1,767 whites. In 1965, 54% of blacks and 93% of whites were satisfied with their jobs. In 1997, 73% of blacks and 86% of whites were satisfied with their jobs. The gaps between blacks and whites tend to disappear for those with high levels of education and income. In 1965, 53% of whites said they would vote for a black person for president; in 1997, 93% said they would do so.
There is a rich store of biographical literature on the emergence of black political, community, educational, and religious leaders, ranging from the leaders of slave insurrections such as Nat Turner to reform leaders Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. To work within “the system” like Booker T. Washington, to modify it like W. E. B. DuBois, to attempt to destroy it like Malcolm X, or to lead it like Jesse Jackson have been the different goals of emergent, charismatic political leaders. There is continuity in leadership among blacks. According to a longitudinal study by Tripp (1986), the black student activists of the 1960s continued to be involved in community activities in 1969 and 1978. But entry into leadership positions in business and industry, except for a few black service-oriented industries, such as insurance and undertaking, is mainly a consequence of the equal opportunities legislation of the 1960s. The entry of blacks into military leadership was stimulated by President Harry S. Truman’s order to integrate the armed forces in the late 1940s, which was followed by continuing increases in the proportion of blacks, particularly in the all-volunteer army. By the end of the twentieth century, according to Oscar Williams, the Southeastern Training of Trainers Program had been responsible for the training of roughly 10,000 black leaders (approximately 65% female) in five southern states, in empowering others, and in long-range planning and implementation.
When legislation, higher authority, or political climate demands it, such as occurred earlier in the military and more recently in industrial and educational organizations, blacks have advanced into higher-level positions. There are numerous black generals, CEOs, presidential candidates, police chiefs, government executives, judges, and university chancellors. School desegregation and affirmative action have opened opportunities for education and advancement of blacks and made visible the movement of blacks into higher-status positions. Formalized recruitment procedures and personnel policies with responsible documentation have resulted in large increases in the advancement of minorities, particularly in larger organizations (Braddock, 1984). The legal impediments to political leadership have changed drastically since the restrictions on black voting rights were lifted in 1964. Especially where blacks form a majority of large minority voting blocs, such as in the Deep South and the inner cities, blacks have succeeded in being elected to office in large numbers. Some black politicians have gained large white constituencies. They have become prominent in federal, state, and local government.
In a laboratory experiment using pairs of high-and low-dominant white and black coeds performing a clerical task in which one participant had to assume the role of leader and the other of follower, Fenelon (1966) found, contrary to expectations, that black women assumed the role of leader twice as often as did white women, no matter what their relative assessment scores in dominance. The white women with high scores in dominance thought it more important to show their egalitarian attitudes than to become leaders.
Group Membership. Although white Americans tend to be addicted to joining groups and associations, black Americans are even more extreme in this regard. Membership in associations is a springboard to leadership experiences and political influence. Concrete, visible issues, such as the right to vote, integration of schools, and lack of access to public accommodations mobilized black followers. But when these concrete issues were resolved and when only more amorphous or less visible issues remained, such as whites-only school board membership, leadership and organization become blunted and the willingness of individuals to be followers declined (Davis, 1982). Without salient black issues, blacks are less likely to assume leadership roles even when they form a sizable proportion of the membership of an organization.
Underrepresentation. Despite their high proportions in some types of organizations such as labor unions, blacks were often underrepresented in positions of leadership. For example, Lamm (1975) found that among 30 union locals with black members in the San Francisco Bay area, only 10 had blacks in leadership positions in proportion to their number in the membership. In 10 locals, blacks were proportionally underrepresented among the leaders, and in the remaining 10 locals, there were no black leaders. Similarly, despite their overrepresentation in excellence in athletics, blacks remain underrepresented in sports leadership positions such as football quarterbacks or team coaches.
Blacks remain underrepresented in management in both the public and private sectors, except in special circumstances. In a study of black MBAs, Brown and Ford (1977) found that relative to their white counterparts, black MBAs had lower opportunities for promotion and advancement. Again, Fernandez (1981) found the biggest gap between aspirations and expectations of upward mobility among black male managers. And according to Jones (1986), 84% of the black MBAs from the top five graduate business schools reported that considerations of race had a negative impact on their performance appraisals, pay, assignments, recognition, and promotions. Nonetheless, black managers could advance when conditions were favorable. For 194 black managers with MBAs who were working in larger organizations, advancement occurred more often when they had more seniority, were in line rather than staff positions, and had help from mentors. They were also helped by their social activities (Nkomo & Cox, 1987).
The entry of blacks and whites into positions of leadership is likely to follow different paths. The importance of a religious ministerial practice as a route to leadership for black men is well known. What is less well known is how the route to leadership often differs for black and white women. Mottl’s (1977) interview study of the different career paths of white and black women reform leaders found that the school bureaucracy was immediately more accessible to white women, who became involved as teachers and middle-class mothers. Their ease of entry from home into school politics was related to the closeness of the schools, particularly the elementary schools, to family life.
African Americans remain underrepresented as small-business owners in America’s inner cities. Earlier in the twentieth century, Jews were inner-city small-business owners; currently it is the immigrant Asian Americans, such as Koreans, who do so. Unlike Koreans, blacks often lack stable families working together and the rotating credit associations that are often required to start and maintain these small businesses (Fukuyama, 1997). African Americans also face additional constraints.
Lower rates of achievement and leadership can be attributed to personal deficits or to educational or cultural deprivation due to blocked opportunities because of cultural conflict and discrimination (Bowman, 1964). Much of black’s experience and how they feel about it is invisible to whites, according to a survey of 270 black professionals and 39 in-depth interviews with black executives. Whites need to understand how their black colleagues experience the organizational environment. What is invisible to whites needs to be made visible. Nearly 90% of the black professionals feel that if they are successful, other blacks will be seen in a better light by whites, but half of those surveyed said that if they are failures, other blacks will be seen unfavorably. They remain ambivalent about networking and confiding in white managers because they are not unsure if they can trust white managers (Livers & Caver, 2002). Overtly racist expressions, such as racial slurs, have become less socially acceptable and more politically incorrect, but more subtle discrimination still exists. Discrimination has been outlawed in the work-place and public facilities by government legislation and regulation. Nevertheless, blacks’ encounters with understated slights and devaluations are still common (Essed, 1991; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992). The continuation of such incidents can have a dehabilitating effect (Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998), be a source of physiological stress (Miller & Kaiser, 2001), and result in feelings of hopelessness (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999).
The differing perspectives were seen in public opinion polling in 1997. Blacks were treated unfairly on the job, according to 45% of blacks but only 14% of whites in a national representative sample. From 42% to 46% of the blacks also felt that they were treated unfairly in shops and malls and in restaurants, while only 12% to 19% of whites agreed that blacks were treated unfairly in those situations. Sixty percent of blacks and 30% of whites agreed that blacks were treated unfairly by the police (Gallup, 1997). Arguing that perceived mistreatment was a more valid measure of discrimination and prejudice on the part of their superiors, Deitch, Barsky, Butz, et al. (2003) analyzed the responses of 314 line workers, 5,483 navy personnel, and 8,311 U.S. Army personnel who were questioned on the extent to which they had been victims of mistreatment. Questions included “Has anyone has set you up for failure?” “given others privileges you didn’t get?,” “failed to provide you with the information to do your job?” In the military samples, blacks reported more mistreatment than did whites, resulting in lower job satisfaction and felt physical well-being.
Black Women Managers. Black women are less disadvantaged than black men. The 2000 Census indicated that black women outnumbered black men in professional and managerial work by approximately 800,000. But only 3% held managerial positions. They said that racism is more of a barrier to their opportunities in a mainstream organization than is sexism (Delany & Delany, 1993). But compared to white men and women, “black women executives are more likely to suffer from the interactive effects of racial and gender discrimination” (Parker & Ogilvie, 1996, p. 201).
Black women managers display some of the same feminine leadership style as white women noted in the previous chapter, such as emphasis on interpersonal relations, empathy, and collaboration. But more often than white women managers, they also tend to observe the traditional masculine style of command, control, and competitiveness. They are likely to be androgynous in their leadership, both task and relations oriented (Parker & Ogilvie, 1996). Their socialization contributes to this tendency as adults. Much is due to dominant and protective disciplinarian mothers (Parker & Ogilvie, 1996). In comparison to white girls, black girls are expected to become self-assertive and independent. Their parents expect them to mature earlier. Even as preschoolers, black girls may already be required to carry considerable responsibility for younger siblings. Early on, they are exposed to strong, dominant mothers as role models (Baumrind, 1972).
“Black mothers … raise daughters who are self-reliant and assertive” (Collins, 1990), and “not socialized to be ‘passive’ or ‘irrational’ … but rather independent, strong … and self-actualizing in a society that devalues black women” (Parker & Ogilvie, 1996, p. 195). The daughters are socialized to resist the standards of mainstream culture and its ideology about race. They are enabled to hold on to a positive sense of self. They have equal or higher educational and career aspirations than white adolescents (E. Smith, 1982). Proportionately more black women now enter college than do white men.
Black women managers need to offset the stereotype by whites that they are too direct, assertive, and flashy; black men need to offset the stereotype as angry and intimidating. About half believe that their own mistakes will reflect badly on other black managers in the organization and that they will be affected adversely by the mistakes of other black managers (Livers & Caver, 2002b).
Succession Problems. Black leaders, whether of social movements or in politics, have often been highly charismatic. One has only to think of Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, and Malcolm X. But as often occurs with many charismatic leaders,2 they seldom leave strong organizations behind them. Because of this, their successor can ordinarily command little of their predecessor’s influence (Davis, 1982).
Financial Support. In contrast to comparable white leaders, black leaders usually run underfunded organizations that limit their growth. They must concentrate their efforts on raising money, face bankruptcy, and curtail their programs. By the 1980s, a number of traditional black organizations experienced reductions of up to 90% in their operating capital. Many newer black organizations (and subsidized black businesses as well) have collapsed in proportionately greater numbers than was expected from the experience of mainstream organizations. Funds to support black organizations have shifted since 1970 from predominantly black to primarily mainstream corporate sources. The influence of the mainstream on black organizational development is also seen in the extent to which mainstream organizations select and identify black leaders of assimilation rather than leaders of protest or black nationalism (Davis, 1982).
In Chapters 4 and 5, it was concluded that leaders need to be more intelligent (but not too much more) than those they lead. Whatever the reason, blacks score lower on tests of general cognitive ability. Although more than 30% of whites score in the 108 to 134 IQ range, only 3.3% of blacks do the same. Blacks with the same amount of education as whites (but not necessarily the same quality of education) who apply for the same jobs or admission to the same colleges score considerably lower in general cognitive abilities, and these black-white differences are resistant to change (Gottfredson, 1986). Meta-analyses of studies of black-white differences in tests for college admission and applying for jobs indicate that black applicants are about a standard deviation lower in mean than white applicants (Roth, Bevier, & Bobko, 2001). More intellectually demanding jobs tend to employ proportionately fewer blacks. Reviewing the research evidence, Schmidt and Hunter (1974) concluded that the lower average job performance of blacks from cognitive ability tests is accurately predicted from their lower average test scores. The lower scores of blacks than whites are not due to test biases. In fact, if anything, the job performance of blacks has been overestimated based on their test results.
Howard and Bray (1988) reported a similar amount of black-white differences in their large-scale manager assessment project. Minorities, mainly black employees of AT&T, were in the 22nd percentile in tested cognitive abilities, while whites were at the 57th percentile. Whites also scored better in general information and on in-basket decision making. But the minorities did just as well as the whites on interpersonal skills, oral presentations, and group participation exercises. In all, compared to 50% of the whites, 29% of the minorities were seen as having middle-management potential. For 13 management competency assessments of 545 whites and 88 blacks, the cognitive differences, such as in assessment of judgment, showed up as expected, but most of the non-cognitive black-white differences, such as assessment of human relations, were not significant (Goldstein, Yusko, & Nicolopoulos, 2001).
Despite these continuing black-white differences, it is clear that a sizable percentage (29% in this instance) of blacks have the potential to be leaders. More generally, 25% of blacks are still higher in tested intelligence than 50% of whites. Although they may be proportionately fewer than the number of whites who are available, a substantial number of blacks with the necessary cognitive skills are on hand for positions of leadership (Elliot & Penner, 1974). And such leadership, for instance in the black community, is related to ability, as reflected in the educational level that is attained.
Education. J. J. Cobb (1974) showed that blacks who were nominated as the most influential members in their black communities were well educated in diverse fields. The educational levels of black executives who were surveyed by E. E. Jennings (1980) were similar to those of their white counterparts. Social class was an important determinant of educational level attained (Bell & Nkomo, 2001) and no doubt affected social class attainment.
In 1970, one in 10 whites had completed at least four years of college, but fewer than one in 20 blacks had done so. Only 15% of blacks aged 55 to 64 had completed high school, compared to 45% of whites. Among those aged 20 and 21, 82% of whites and 50% of blacks had completed high school. But the educational gap between blacks and whites has narrowed considerably since 1970. By the 1980s, blacks were actually entering college in greater numbers and obtaining more years of education than were whites of the same intelligence level of (Manning & Jackson, 1984). Nevertheless, it is the lack of educational attainment, reflected in large dropout rates, coupled with the often inferior quality of the education that is available, that continue to be factors in keeping lesser proportions of blacks than whites in positions of political, educational, military, and industrial leadership.
Socioeconomic status, one key to leadership, remains lower for blacks than for whites. Blacks’ incomes are lower and their unemployment rates higher than those of whites. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to equate impoverishment with race. Half of all blacks do not live in slums. And there is a small black upper class. This “high society” of black professionals and businessmen is characterized by conspicuous consumption and the excessive formation of clubs because of their exclusion from the counterpart white society (Frazier, 1966). Increasingly, however, social exclusion is diminishing. There is a larger black middle class, although the plurality of blacks falls into the lower class. The black class structure is unlike the white structure. Whites see themselves mainly as middle class, with small proportions in the upper and lower classes (Drake & Cayton, 1966).
The Slum Subculture. Any study of blacks as leaders would be incomplete if it ignored the large subset of blacks who are the disadvantaged poor. The slum subculture contains its own ethos, which is a more important determinant of behavior than is being black. The characteristics of this subculture include the absence of a sheltered childhood, early initiation into sex, female-centered families, authoritarianism, marginality, helplessness, resignation, fatalism, dependence, feelings of inferiority, lack of impulse control, inability to defer gratification, belief in the superiority of males, and tolerance of psychological pathology (H. Lewis, 1965).
There are strategies for survival in the slums, according to Rainwater (1966), and presumably black leaders in the ghetto become masters of such strategies. First, to obtain immediate gratification, one needs to make oneself interesting and attractive to others to manipulate and seduce them, even though one really has little to exchange. The second strategy is to resort to force and violence. Getting into trouble with the law is a rite of passage for some. Blacks constitute half the inmate population of American prisons. Toughness and masculinity are sought, along with cleverness in manipulating others, excitement and thrills, and luck and autonomy (W. B. Miller, 1965). At the same time, lower-class black youths, particularly the boys, miss the socialization experiences to prepare them for the world of work that are obtained by white working-class youths (Himes, 1965). Lower-class blacks have a generalized distrust of mainstream organizations. The contingencies between effective work and its positive outcomes are weak. They see considerate and supportive supervisors as hostile and untrustworthy—evaluations that are unlikely to foster success in an organization (Triandis, 1984).
Family Life. For the population as a whole, black family life is less stable than white family life. Black children are much less likely to live with both parents, and black women are more likely to encounter marital discord than are white women. Moynihan’s (1965) well-publicized analysis concluded, from these types of differences, that black fathers, often transient, failed to provide their children with support, discipline, or direction. Hill (1971) countered by pointing with pride to five strengths of intact black families: the adaptability of family roles, strong kinship bonds, a strong work orientation, a strong religious orientation, and a strong achievement orientation.
An interesting question is whether the absence of fathers as role models for children who are raised only by their mothers reduces their leadership potential in either childhood or later life. Actually, strong, dominant mothers have been most significant for many world leaders. Fatherless children may have to take on responsibilities earlier, although evidence suggests that fatherless boys who lack a masculine role model with which to identify develop personalities that are marked by impulsivity, academic failure, indifference, immature dependence, and effeminacy (I. Katz, 1974). Role models for black boys are often provided by older street gang leaders and older brothers. In urban inner-city ghettos, being arrested and going to prison are viewed by many black adolescent boys as a rite of passage into adulthood.
The educational impact of fatherlessness seems minimal. Whiteman and Deutsch (1968) found no relationship between black children’s reading skills and the intactness of their families. Similarly, the national survey by Coleman, et al. (1966) found that the presence or absence of a father was not a factor in the scholastic attitudes or achievement of lower-class black or white students. Also, Feld and Lewis (1967) found practically no relationship between family intactness and school anxiety.
Relevant to their adolescent and adult tendencies to influence rather than to be influenced, young black girls, especially those in lower-middle-class black families, are likely to become highly self-assertive and independent, despite authoritarian treatment by their parents. In particular, their mothers provide strong, dominant role models. Parental warmth is moderate, but the parents discourage infantile behavior. As noted before, early maturity of behavior is expected of the daughters, who are required to assume considerable responsility for the care of younger siblings at an early age (Baumrind, 1971; Billingsley, 1968; Ladner, 1971).
Black Stress Due to Marginality. As noted earlier, minorities often live marginal lives, in between the mainstream and their own minority world. To capture the constraining effects on individual blacks who attempt to succeed as leaders, particularly in a white world, one must attend to the stress created by marginality. At the extreme, black managers, particularly female black managers, may be alone in a white-dominated organization, solo pioneers seen by many as tokens of integration (Bell & Nkomo, 2001). They face anxieties from internal conflicts (such as between their higher visibility and their lower social status) and confusion from external inconsistencies (such as policies of racial equality but incidents of apparent prejudice). They lack exposure to the informal networks of consequence (Jones, 1973). They may lack accessibility to superiors and respect, appreciation, and encouragement from them (Human & Hofmeyr, 1984). Many black managers feel isolated and alienated. They may suffer a loss of identity. They report difficulties in adjusting to the cues and norms of the corporate environment. They experience value conflicts and may feel uncomfortable among whites. Even though mentoring or counseling might be helpful, they avoid getting involved for fear that the information they reveal may be used against them. As with other disadvantaged groups, their families are unlikely to understand what they do. They often feel rage against some whites’ subtle devaluation of them. Therefore, it is not surprising that blacks suffer from high blood pressure at twice the rate of whites (B. M. Campbell, 1982).
As with whites, leadership potential shows up early in the lives of black individuals. According to personal interviews and surveys of 221 black men and women who were serving in elected positions in North Carolina in 1977, evidence of leadership within the black community began as early as elementary school. Each experience as a leader or a follower in the family, school, church, or community was seen as an opportunity for learning and developing leadership potential (Buie, 1983). But there are also systemic aspects that are particular to black leaders.
Black Values and Black Leadership. As was indicated in Chapter 10, individuals who “typify the group norm” are more esteemed than are those who reject or depart from it. Grossack (1954a) found that blacks who were attracted to black activities and who valued the Negro race, as such, were more esteemed by fellow blacks than were those who were indifferent to black activities, who rejected blacks, or who disliked black heroes. Thus it follows, as Kirkhart (1963) showed that college students who were accepted for group leadership and external leadership positions were those who identified themselves with their own racial group. Dellums (1977) thought that black political leaders must fully identify with “black politics,” a commitment to the eradication of the oppression of minorities.
Lamm (1975) noted that black union leaders, despite their own higher incomes, identified themselves with the black working class and had more favorable attitudes toward blacks. They were also antiwhite and anti-Semitic in attitude. Fifty percent were identified as “Race Men.” Compared with 27% of the members of the black middle class who were identified as “Uncle Toms” (subscribing to the white value structure), only 6% of black union leaders could be so identified. On this question of values, blacks who aspire to positions of leadership may be faced with a conflict between the black movement’s concerns for social, political, and economic equality and the achievement and individualism that are likely to be of more importance in mainstream organizational life.
Differences in the leadership potential of blacks and whites are likely to accrue from the differences in personal values expressed by black and white college students. According to Fichter (1966) and Bayer and Boruch (1969), in comparison to white college students, black students placed a greater emphasis on being helpful to others and to society. They were less concerned than whites about experiencing leadership, making money, and being autonomous. Traditionally, blacks sought high-status open occupations with little interaction and competition with whites, such as teaching in all-black schools (Porat & Ryterband, 1974). But the occupations they sought broadened by the late 1960s (Bayer & Boruch, 1969) as affirmative action opened new opportunities in the professions and industry. Nevertheless, educated blacks continue to concentrate much more than their white counterparts in education and social service occupations. They favor law over medicine. They remain underrepresented in engineering, science, and medicine. The differences in aspirations and access are reinforced by the different networks of contacts and information that are available to blacks and whites and by continued segregated living (Spilerman, 1977). Black managers remain convinced of the importance of “the system” to their own job satisfaction. Wright, King, Berg, and Creecy (1987) found that organizational rather than personal factors most accounted for the job satisfaction of black managers.
Job Satisfaction of Black Leaders. Overall, satisfaction that their needs were being met was lower among black leaders and professionals than among their white counterparts. Slocum and Strawser (1972) found that black certified public accountants (CPAs) reported more deficiencies in the fulfillment of their needs than did other CPAs. Black CPAs felt significantly more deprived in compensation, opportunities to help people and to make friends, independent thought and action, and feelings of self-fulfillment and self-esteem. E. E. Jennings (1980) reported that black executives felt their progress as a group had been slower than that of women and was likely to be slower over the next 15 years. Nonetheless, a correlation of .37 was found between support of black managers for diversity and job satisfaction and −.37 between support for diversity and intention to quit.
O’Reilly and Roberts (1973) reported that overall job satisfaction was significantly higher for white than for nonwhite female registered nurse supervisors. On the other hand, contrary to King and Bass’s (1974) prediction, Scott and Moore (1981) discovered in a survey of the assessed value of management by objectives (MBO) to 77 black managers and 61 white managers, supervisors, and professionals, that although both blacks and whites were favorable toward the use of MBO, blacks found more value in MBO than did whites for doing their jobs and for the organization. Again, Alper (1975) observed that, compared with white newly hired college graduates, black graduates gave the contextual rather than the intrinsic elements of work significantly higher ratings in importance.
Motivational Differences. Watson and Barone (1976) noted that black managers were lower in power motivation. Yet in a study of 23 black and 75 white supervisors, Miner (1977c) found the black supervisors to be higher than their white counterparts in the motivation to manage (good relations with superiors, competitiveness, masculinity, assertiveness, visibility, and willingness to deal with routines). Consistent with Miner, Thomas (1982) obtained results indicating that black male and female business students were more task oriented in their supervisory orientation than were comparable white students. Black leaders of U.S. Navy squads scored lower than did white squad leaders on Rotter’s Internal-External Control Scale (W. R. Allen, 1975b). Vinson and Mitchell (1975) showed that black managers assigned higher ratings than did white managers to the importance of obtaining autonomy, self-fulfillment, friendship, and promotion.
These results may reflect the extent to which middle-class blacks conform to mainstream norms more than do their white counterparts. Black-white values and orientation probably depend more on the segments of the respective professional groups from which they are drawn. Black managers may be more task-oriented than their mainstream counterparts, whereas black ministers may be more concerned about social issues than their mainstream counterparts.
Differences in Self-Esteem. Studies in the 1960s found that, on the average, blacks had lower self-esteem than did whites (Ruhe, 1972) even when they were given evidence that their abilities were equal to those of whites (Lefcourt & Ladwig, 1965). Such lack of self-esteem affected their assertiveness, desire to be integrated, and expectations of success in their careers (Crain & Weisman, 1972). However, in a large-scale study of more than 5,000 blacks and whites in 25 northern metropolitan areas, Crain and Weisman (1972) found that the lower self-esteem of blacks was more common among blacks who were born in the South. The self-esteem of blacks who were born in the North tended to be as high as or higher than that of whites. Furthermore, the lack of self-esteem among blacks and its implication for black leadership (Proshansky & Newton, 1968) had to be discounted, to some extent, as a factor. Since the 1960s, there has been a rapid increase of successful black models in sports, television, movies, the military, government, and politics. Opportunities for qualified black professionals and managers in the white world of work have opened, stimulated by programs to foster diversity. With the rise of the black movement, the “new” black person has come to value assertiveness and a feeling of having greater control over fate (Ruhe, 1972). The findings of L. Campbell’s (1983) survey of 20 black women leaders in rural southern communities illustrate the changes that have occurred in the South. On various self-report instruments, these leaders described themselves as high in self-esteem and feelings of expertise, competence, and internal control. They were high in the need for achievement and felt they had the concrete personal resources to influence others and to fulfill their groups’ expectations. Another sign of higher self-esteem was seen in a study of U.S. Navy squad leaders. Black leaders chose themselves as the best squad leader in their company more often than did white leaders (W. R. Allen, 1975a). Gray-Little and Hofdahl (2000) confirmed a full turnabout with a meta-analysis of 261 comparisons of the self-esteem of blacks and whites involving more than 500,000 individuals. Higher self-esteem was found in black than white children, adolescents, and young adults. The black-white difference increased with age and more for females rather than for males.
Disappearing Differences. A number of older studies also reported little or no personal differences owing to race. For instance, Dexter and Stein (1955) found little difference among women leaders on campuses as a function of race in masculinity, personality, and speed of association. And Barati (1981) could find no significant differences in the preferred leadership styles or attitudes toward subordinates of 160 black and white undergraduates of both sexes. In better-controlled subsequent studies, especially studies of individuals who have already achieved positions of leadership, black-white differences in values, motivation, and other personal attributes have tended to disappear. For example, among blacks who have attained leadership and management positions, less difference has been found between their values and the values of their white counterparts. Watson and Barone (1976) failed to detect such differences in self-concept on En gland’s (1967a) Personal Values Questionnaire or in the need for achievement and affiliation. And W. R. Allen (1975b) could find no significant differences between black and white naval squad leaders’ levels of aspiration and expectancy of success.
Shull and Anthony (1978) found that among 21 black and 56 white participants in a supervisory training program, the blacks were less willing to support harsh punishment for violation of organizational rules than were the whites, especially when the subordinates had a history of good performance. Otherwise, there was little difference in the way blacks and whites thought they would handle disciplinary problems and role conflicts. Somewhat different findings emerged when Stogdill and Coady (1970) used the Ideal Form of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) in a study of two vocational high schools. The white students thought that consideration was the most highly regarded factor for ideal leaders, whereas the black students thought that initiating structure was most important.
The importance of the race of the supervisor was shown by Richards and Jaffee (1972), who completed a laboratory study in which groups consisting of two white undergraduate males and a black or white supervisor played a business game. Trained observers rated the white supervisors significantly higher than the black supervisors on human relations skills and administrative-technical skills. Their ratings were based on checklists of effective and ineffective behaviors, as well as overall graphic ratings. The observers also used Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis to assess the leaders’ and subordinates’ behavior. The white supervisors of the all-white groups of subordinates engaged in significantly more signs of solidarity, giving suggestions, and giving orientation, which lent support to King and Bass’s (1974) hypothesis that white supervisors are more directive and less passive about relationships than are black supervisors when dealing with predominantly white subordinates. However, Bartol, Evans, and Stith (1978) argued that the evaluative data may have been biased, since all the observers were white.
Experiments before the early 1960s with biracial teams working on intellectual-type problem-solving tasks showed that blacks spoke less and, therefore, exerted less effort to be influential than did whites (Katz & Benjamin, 1960; Katz, Goldston, & Benjamin, 1958). But, possibly reflecting societal shifts in the 1960s, Fenelon and Megargee (1971) obtained contrary results with female college students who had described themselves as either high or low in dominance. Despite the white women’s personal dominant tendencies, the white women yielded to the black women with whom they interacted, apparently to avoid the implication of prejudice.
Bass, Avolio, and Goodheim (1987) asked sets of students to describe the transformational and transactional leadership behavior of world leaders. Among the 69 leaders, three were black and almost all the rest were white. Martin Luther King, Jr., was at the top of the scale in charisma, and Malcolm X was not far behind. The two were also near the top of the sample in intellectual stimulation. For Davis (1982), this finding was to be expected, for he felt that “the needs and experiences of the black population may dictate a greater emphasis on transformational leadership” (p. 194). Jesse Jackson illustrated these charismatic and transformational tendencies in the 1984 and 1988 presidential election campaigns. Consistent with this was an MLQ survey and interviews of 17 black women college presidents whom Jones (1992) found tended to be transformational, empowering, envisioning, and directly involved in whatever work needed to be done.
Martin Luther King, Jr., a national icon, was a profound, provocative, emotionally powerful orator. Although charismatic in most respects, he was filled with self-doubts, and was never able to gain mass support for nonviolent struggle to achieve radical social change. He used black Christian idiom to advocate unconventional political ideas. He galvanized black protest activists with his oratory, but the actual protest movement was more often led by self-reliant local and student black leaders. He served as a conciliator among them in strategy sessions. His influence with public officials was based on his moral and intellectual clarity. He articulated blacks’ concerns to white audiences and mobilized black community institutions, financial resources, regional networks of black churches, grassroots leaders through his emphasis on nonviolence and received much positive press coverage (Carson, 1987).
Malcolm X attacked three myths that denigrated blacks and justified racism by whites, and resulted in blacks demeaning themselves: (1) blacks were animals, (2) blacks were a minority, and (3) blacks supported and would be benefited by integration. He instilled a sense of history and racial pride in blacks. He noted that colored races were in the majority in the world. Their cultures predated the European. Integration would weaken black identity and reinforce the belief in white superiority (Flick, 1981). Like other leaders of black movements, Malcolm X focused on group identity and the need for a sense of community. Though leaders in the white mainstream more often direct their attention to conserving resources and the status quo, leaders of minorities, such as blacks, must more often be transformational in their concern for social change (Burns, 1978), as well as for unmet social needs and for inequities in the distribution of opportunities (Thompson, 1963).
A study of black and white supervisors is likely to require knowledge of whether the subordinates are black or white. Wesolowski and Mossholder (1997) surveyed 170 subordinates and their immediate superiors according to whether each dyad was the same or demographically different in age, sex, race, and education. With an 87% return rate, the subordinates reported that differences in race correlated with their perceptions of job satisfaction and procedural justice, but not with job burnout. Again, a study by Rosen and Jerdee (1977) illustrated the expectation that a leader’s effective supervisory style depends on the racial composition of the group he or she is supervising. Rosen and Jerdee administered a decision-making exercise to 148 business students. The students evaluated the extent to which participative decision-making styles were appropriate when supervising work groups of various organizational statuses and minority compositions. Significantly less participation was seen as likely to be efficacious with minority subordinates. Such subordinates were judged to be less competent and less concerned with the organization’s goals.
A line of evidence that indirectly indicates that race affects interactions between leaders and subordinates comes from studies reviewed by Sattler (1970) on the influence of race on behavior in interviews. Respondents tended to give socially desirable responses to interviewers of races other than their own, responses that were socially “correct” or acceptable, whether or not they reflected the respondents’ true feelings. Lower-class respondents were even more likely to be sensitive to the interviewer’s race than were middle-and upper-class respondents.
Black Supervisor with Black Subordinates. Traditionally, blacks were limited to leading other blacks. Black supervisors with mainly black subordinates were expected by King and Bass (1974) to be highly concerned about how their subordinates felt about them. Therefore, although in general black leaders were more directive, they were expected to be less directive than were white supervisors of blacks. Adams (1978) reported that both black and white subordinates perceived their black supervisors to be more considerate. The 11% of the subordinates in a retail organization who were black gave their black superiors particularly higher ratings for consideration over their white counterparts. However, as noted in Chapter 28, for 19 black social service agency heads supervising 54 counselors of black inner-city clients, Schriesheim and Murphy (1976) found that more consideration was helpful mainly in low-stress job settings. When blacks supervised blacks and stress was high, more initiation of structure was helpful.
Black leaders often face the problem of having to earn the trust of their black subordinates, since the latter see them as having been co-opted into the white power structure (M. L. King Jr., 1968). Delbecq and Kaplan (1968) studied the managerial effectiveness of local leaders in neighborhood opportunity centers in an urban ghetto. Clients served by the centers thought that the directors were conservative, unwilling to permit the community to be involved in decision making, and ineffective in negotiations with leaders in the larger community. Subordinates in the centers sought immediate change and action through social protest, marches, and rallies. The directors tended to see such activism by subordinates as a threat to their own self-esteem and to their leadership position. They knew that higher authority was opposed to demonstrations and therefore felt in the middle between conflicting demands from subordinates and from the higher authority. At the same time, King and Bass (1974) suggested that in comparison to white supervisors, black supervisors of black subordinates may have more difficulty identifying with a white higher authority than with their black work group. A black supervisor may need additional symbols of authority as well as higher-level support to make his or her position credible.
Black supervisors of black subordinates in particular may have to be able to converse fluently in the street language (“Ebonics” or black En glish) of their subordinates and the general American En glish of their superiors and to be flexible about using both (Kochman, 1969).
Black Supervisor with White Subordinates. King and Bass (1974) suggested that, in comparison with whites supervising whites, black supervisors with mainly white subordinates would be expected to engage more often in general rather than close supervision and to allow or encourage subordinates to initiate boss-subordinate interactions. Doing so would reduce the possible feelings of status incongruity3 among the white subordinates. The minority-majority status inversion that occurs when blacks supervise whites may generate, for status-conscious whites, a conflict between wanting to avoid the black supervisor and the need to interact with him or her (Bla-lock, 1959). Such whites may also suffer from a sense of lost status as a consequence of the required interaction with a black superior (Blalock, 1967). Even if the black leader has status as an expert, hostility and loss of status may be experienced, particularly by lower-status white subordinates (Winder, 1952). In a retail organization in which 88% of 406 subordinate managers were white, the black male bosses, as predicted by King and Bass, were perceived by the white subordinate managers to exhibit more consideration than did their white male counterparts. But as was noted earlier, their black subordinates were more extreme in perceiving the black superiors as more considerate (Adams, 1978).
The job of black supervisors of white subordinates may be made more difficult, according to Richards and Jaffee (1972), by white subordinates who go out of their way to hinder their effectiveness. For this and other reasons, King and Bass (1974) suggested that it is particularly important for black supervisors of whites to have the full support of higher authority.
King and Bass (1974) also noted that the small number of black leaders in organizations, particularly blacks who supervise whites, makes them more visible than their white counterparts. This visibility, King and Bass advised, should cause the black supervisors to have more anxiety about succeeding, a greater sensitivity to negative data regarding the activities they supervise, a possible overreaction to such data, and a greater need for external confirmation of the value of the group’s and the leader’s performance.
White Supervisor with Black Subordinates. King and Bass (1974) suggested that white supervisors were likely to be more directive4 and less consultative when supervising groups with predominantly black subordinates than when supervising groups of white subordinates. They would be more likely to undervalue the capabilities of black subordinate. Their rejection of black workers, in turn, would cause the workers to perform poorly (I. Katz, 1968, 1970). White supervisors would want black subordinates to respect them rather than to like them and to be concerned primarily with pleasing (probably white) higher authority. Furthermore, King and Bass (1974, p. 256) noted
Whites supervising blacks often reflect … in private conversations, a feeling of walking on eggs. This feeling may well be reflected in (1) greater censoring of responses and reactions by white supervisors when most of their subordinates are black, (2) less spontaneity in supervisory-subordinate relations, and (3) less certainty on the part of white supervisors as to how rigidly to enforce company rules or procedures. … Reciprocally, black subordinates may be less willing to discuss personal problems with a white as opposed to a black supervisor.
Consistent with this comment was Sattler’s (1970) research review, which indicated that black clients preferred black counselors. Also consistent was the finding among 1,944 workers in various hotels that, compared to other nonwhite workers, the African Americans were more sensitive to their white supervisors and management and felt the supervisors showed less behavioral integrity. The black workers were also lower in commitment, trust, and satisfaction with supervision. They revealed more intention to quit (Friedman, Simons, & Liu, 2003). And in agreement with King and Bass’s (1974) suggestion that white supervisors would be more directive with their black subordinates, Kipnis, Silverman, and Copeland (1973) found that although they mentioned similar kinds of problems with their black and white subordinates, white supervisors reported using more coercion, such as suspensions, more frequently when dealing with black than with white subordinates. Kraut (1975a) also noted that white managers are often apprehensive about supervising new black subordinates, but they frequently react by giving special help to new black employees. White supervisors may be concerned about how white clients will react to black subordinates. Also, they may worry about how to handle mixed-race social events.
Indirect confirmation of the possible subtle effects of a white leader–black subordinate interaction came in an experiment. White interviewers deliberately treated the white job applicants to the same subtle features of the negative interaction by not leaning forward, sitting farther away, and making the interviews shorter. The white job applicants reported that they were more nervous and performed less effectively in the interview than did the white applicants who were treated to a positive interaction with the interviewers. This study corroborated commentary that new black professional employees experience many stresses above and beyond what would be expected for white employees and their new, usually white, superiors.5
When blacks were involved in intellectual-type experiments, their performance was affected adversely especially if anxiety levels were high and if they were led to believe that they were being compared with equivalent whites (Katz, Epps, & Axelson, 1964; Katz & Green-baum, 1963)
The Hard-Core Unemployed as Subordinates. Although many whites are numbered among the hard-core unemployed, blacks are heavily overrepresented. Therefore, the literature about their supervision has relevance, particularly the possible extra need for supervisors to be generally both supportive and controlling. This need was demonstrated by Friedlander and Greenberg (1971) and by the National Industrial Conference Board (1970). Both studies found that the hard-core unemployed wanted supervisory support in terms of friendliness, courtesy, and encouragement. The need for supervisors to intervene with the interpersonal difficulties of the hard-core unemployed (Goodman, 1969; Hodgson & Brenner, 1968; Morgan, Blonsky, & Rosen, 1970) and possibly to provide close supervision (Triandis & Malpass, 1971) was suggested, even though such close supervision might prove dissatisfying (Goodale, 1973).
Beatty (1974) found generally positive correlations between the extent to which 21 hard-core unemployed black women described their supervisor’s consideration on the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ) and their earnings and performance over a two-year period. But supervisory initiation of structure on the SBDQ6 was negatively associated with the black women’s work performance. W. S. MacDonald (1967b) found somewhat different results in Job Corps centers with large percentages of black trainees. Positive incentives had little value in shaping behavior. Nor was verbal reproof of much use in contrast to setting and policing goals and applying sanctions for infractions by the group. Infractions dropped 60% in two weeks.
Similar in many respects are unskilled and precariously employed black day laborers. Still lingering are some of the master-slave effects of black slavery in America of white bosses and black day laborers hired and paid for the day. Soaries (2003) found the similar themes in 10 interviews recorded in the 1930s with former slaves and 10 interviews of blacks hired and paid for the day from a day-labor pool. The similarities included themes of superior master (boss) and inferior slave (laborer), a sense of paternalism, and coercive leadership.
Black or White Leaders with Mixed Racial Groups. No simple generalizations are possible here. Some studies reported that whether the supervisor was black or white did not matter. For instance, in groups of mixed racial composition, Adams (1978) could find no differences in satisfaction or job problems among 406 subordinates in a retail organization (88% of whom were white) that were associated with whether their supervisor was a black male, a white male, or a white female. Nor did the subordinates’ satisfaction depend on whether the subordinates were black or white. The specific behavior of leaders, rather than their race or the race of their subordinates, may be a much more important influence on subordinates’ performance and satisfaction. Schott (1970) found that among nonwhite school principals with integrated staffs, job satisfaction of faculty members was highly related to the principals’ reconciliation of demands, tolerance of uncertainty, persuasiveness, tolerance of freedom, assumption of roles, consideration, predictive accuracy, and integration of the group, as measured by the LBDQ-XII.
When subordinates comprise a mixed group of black and white employees, King and Bass (1974) suggested, the group will lack cohesion, which should result in the need for more directive behavior by supervisors, black or white.7 Conversely, when groups of subordinates are racially homogeneous, cohesion will probably be higher and will result in the possibility of more participative supervisory styles by both black and white supervisors. But experiments failed to support these conjectures. Hill and Hughes (1974) and Hill and Ruhe (1974) conducted a laboratory experiment in which undergraduate student participants had to compare black and white leaders under conditions in which the subordinate dyads were black, white, or both. Black and white observers were employed. The one significant difference in Bales Interaction Process Analyses observations showed that both the black and the white leaders of the black dyads were less directive than were the leaders of the white or mixed dyads on a fairly structured knot-tying task. (Of the three tasks, the knot-tying task was expected to require the most directive behavior from the leaders who possessed the knot-tying knowledge.) Hill and Ruhe (1974) reported no difference in the total time each supervisor talked during the three tasks, regardless of the racial composition of the subordinate pairs, and Allen and Ruhe (1976) found no difference in the supervision of mixed dyads involved in ship-routing and knot-tying tasks.
But some investigations did show that it made a difference whether a black or white was in charge of a mixed-race group and that subordinates acted differently depending on the supervisor’s race. According to May-hand and Grusky (1972), when black supervisors adopt a close and punitive style of leadership with a mixed group of black and white subordinates, the black subordinates are likely to be more vocal than are the white subordinates in opposing the leaders. But the white subordinates may show their dissatisfaction by reducing their output. Whites in this situation may be more accommodating in attitude but not in behavior to coercive black supervisors. Hill and Fox (1973) noted, on the basis of a study of 17 racially mixed rifle squads in a training battalion of the U.S. Marines, that white squad leaders reported giving proportionately more reprimands, but also more praise, to white subordinates than to black subordinates. And the praise white leaders reported giving to white subordinates was more than that given by black leaders to white subordinates.
In a previously mentioned study of 288 male naval recruits, W. R. Allen (1975a) formed 64 experimental groups of four members each, 25% black, 50% black, and 75% black. The supervisors were black or white. The leaders, regardless of whether they were black or white, experienced increasing supervisory difficulties as the relative proportion of blacks increased in the groups they were supervising. But the subordinates’ SBDQ descriptions of the consideration or initiation of their leaders failed to account for any of the results. Furthermore, black leaders were less expressive in their behavior and were generally more inhibited. White-supervised groups performed tasks faster than did black-supervised groups. Allen explained that these results were because of status incongruence and social stress.
In another previously cited study, W. S. Parker (1976) administered the Survey of Organizations8 to a sample of 17 white supervisors and all of the 16 black supervisors in three plants with a total of 427 supervisors and 7,286 hourly employees. A total of 72 black and 36 white subordinates described the 33 supervisors. Smaller percentages of Chicano supervisors and subordinates were also involved in the racially mixed work groups. When the four leadership effectiveness measures derived from the Survey of Organizations were examined, significant differences were found between black and white supervisors. Compared to the white supervisors, the black supervisors were rated significantly more favorably by their subordinates on managerial support, emphasis on goals, and facilitation of work. The difference for facilitation of interaction was in the same direction but was not statistically significant. Furthermore, according to Parker, blacks achieved higher ratings from their black and white subordinates because black supervisors were seen as giving more support, stimulating a contagious enthusiasm for doing a good job, emphasizing the task to be completed, and removing roadblocks to doing a good job. Also, when white subordinates were the minority in their work group, they tended to rate their white supervisor more favorably on managerial support than did white subordinates who were in the majority in their own work group. This finding was an exception to the general finding, to be discussed next, that subordinates did not give more favorable ratings to supervisors of their own race.
A variety of different kinds of bias have been demonstrated, but the effects have been decidedly mixed. Hammer, Kim, Baird, and Bigoness (1974) asked participants to rate workers who were shown performing on videotape according to an objective criterion of effectiveness. The raters and workers included whites and blacks of both sexes. Although high performers were generally rated as more effective than low performers, blacks rated blacks higher than whites, whites rated whites higher than blacks, and greater differences were seen between high-and low-performing whites than between high-and low-performing blacks. A total of 22,431 managers were rated, 73% of them white, in a meta-analysis by Mount, Fisher, Holt, et al. (1995). It was concluded that black superiors, peers, and subordinates rated black managers more favorably than they rated white managers. White superiors rated white managers more favorably than they did black managers, but white peers and white subordinates were not inclined to do the same. Black raters were more lenient in their ratings of managers of both races.
Explanations for the good or poor performance of blacks and whites are systematically different. Similar to what was found for the performance of women compared to that of men in the previous chapter, the attributions given blacks for high performance were that they were lucky or highly motivated. Equally high-performing whites were seen as able and well educated. Poorly performing blacks were perceived as showing their lack of ability and education; poorly performing whites, their anxiety and lack of luck or motivation (Pettigrew, Jernmott, & Johnson, 1984).
Bigoness (1976) found that raters tended to give higher ratings to poorly performing blacks than to poorly performing whites yet rated high-performing whites and blacks similarly. Bartol, Evans, and Stith (1978) concluded after a review of studies9 that there was a tendency to evaluate black leaders more positively on relations-oriented than task-oriented factors.
For example, Beatty (1973) found that sponsoring employers’ perceptions of social behaviors, such as friendliness and acceptance by others, had a greater influence on the employers’ performance ratings of new black supervisors than did employers’ perceptions of the new black supervisors’ task-related behaviors. At the same time, Richards and Jaffee (1972) obtained results suggesting that subordinates with more liberal attitudes were more likely to give their black supervisors higher ratings, especially on human relations skills, than were subordinates with less liberal attitudes. This finding may account for the different results obtained in field and laboratory studies by Kraiger and Ford (1985), who completed a meta-analysis of 59 studies involving almost 15,000 black and white ratees. Whites tended to give higher ratings to white supervisors; blacks tended to give higher ratings to black supervisors. The effects of race were substantial in the field studies but close to zero in the laboratory studies. (Most laboratory studies are done in college settings, where norms for racial equality and against racial bias are likely to be greater than in the field.) Nonetheless, reports of bias have not been uniform in either setting. There has been a considerable variation in findings.
Burroughs (1970) studied black and white girls in discussion groups. White followers rated black leaders higher when they exhibited a high quality of performance. But Hall and Hall (1976) found no differences due to race or sex in undergraduates’ ratings of a case of an effective personnel administrator. And Durojaiye (1969) studied the effects of sex and race on sociometric choice among schoolchildren aged 8 to 11. Although these children preferred friends of their own sex and race, neither sex nor race influenced their choice of leaders. However, Richards and Jaffee (1972) found that, as a whole, white trained observers judged black leaders more severely than they did white leaders. But Vinson and Mitchell (1975) reported the opposite. They noted that from mostly white superiors, black managers received higher performance ratings than did white managers. Schmidt and Johnson (1973) found no differences in peer evaluations among supervisory trainees, whereas among naval squad leaders, W. R. Allen (1975b) found that white leaders received significantly higher ratings from white subordinates than from black subordinates. Similarly, black subordinates chose their black leader as best squad leader in the company more often than they chose their white leader. Finally, Cox and Krumboltz (1958) and Dejung and Kaplan (1962) found, in early nonsupervisory situations, that ratees received significantly higher evaluations from persons of their own race. In the same way, Flaugher, Campbell, and Pike (1969) found that black medical technicians were rated significantly higher by black than by white supervisors.
Some Implications. No simple answers emerge to the question of whether racial considerations bias evaluations of performance. As long as one must depend on subjective evaluations of black and white leaders, one must be sensitive to the potential for bias in their evaluations, although such biases may fail to show up in particular instances. One can imagine some circumstances in which superiors will bend over backward to give unearned higher evaluations to black supervisors, but other situations in which prejudice may cause lower-than-deserved ratings. Black subordinates and superiors may feel the need to overvalue members of their own race or may set extra-high standards for them. Student participants’ ratings in transitory experimental settings may be freer or more biased by the students’ generalized feelings about race in comparison to the ratings by long-time organizational colleagues of the performance of familiar associates. But such colleagues also may be more biased or less biased, depending on their general racial attitudes.
Individual differences may override any possible generalizations. Thus Bass, Cascio, McPherson, and Tragash (1976) collected the responses of 315 managers and professional employees in a large light-manufacturing establishment on 109 racial awareness items. A factor analysis revealed that the respondents differed reliably among themselves to the extent to which they agreed that the effectiveness of blacks in leadership and management is generally influenced by five factors: (1) bias in the system, (2) limited implementation of affirmative action policies, (3) incompetence of black employees, (4) failure to include black employees in the system in a real way, and (5) need for black employees to build self-esteem.
Among the personal strategies that African Americans can adopt is to make themselves more valued. They can enhance their competence through higher education, particularly in fields such as engineering or business. They can avoid resegregating themselves within white schools, to develop as much experience and comfort working in a white as in a black world. As Ken Chenault, the black CEO of American Express, noted, “I learned very early to move between both (black and white worlds) and develop a level of confidence no matter what world I am operating in” (Slay, 2003, p. 56). African Americans can seek entry into firms with good track records for developing and promoting blacks. They can seek sponsors and mentors in those firms. They can prepare themselves to be at the margin of two influences, accepting and maintaining both the desirability of their black identity and the organization’s values.
Henderson (1986) suggested that individual African Americans need such specific strategies to anchor themselves in corporate America. They must strengthen their leadership skills and develop a healthy and secure home life. Bowman (1964) used the path-goal hypothesis to sum up what African Americans need to consider in their efforts to succeed. In addition to pursuing education, they must believe that their efforts will pay off for them and they must learn to cope with the various social and organizational barriers that stand in their way. Black social identity may need to be emphasized in a black organization but deemphasized in a mainstream organization. Colin Powell, when faced with racism early in his army career, chose to be successful rather than to become enraged by racism (Slay, 2003).
African-American leaders as a group can assist in the process of upgrading those who follow them. Black leaders in the emerging black middle class need to channel their political energy, talent, and imagination to constructive ends, particularly to help cope with the problems of lower-class blacks (Loury, 1985).
Walters (1985) called for a shift in political strategy from the protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Much of this has occurred in the past 30 years. Consultation has replaced confrontation. The black community has been reconstructed internally by strengthening its common resource base and its common frame of reference. The newer strategy is harder to pursue as the issues have become so complex that black leaders may have difficulty with their constituencies because of the additional information and comprehension required (Davis, 1987). African American leaders continue to face a strong challenge in unifying the diverse sectors of their community (Jacob, 1985), but signs of their success are prevalent in higher education, suburban living, and leading roles in politics, government, business, religion, sports, entertainment, and the military. Nevertheless, the success is not shared by the one-third or more who remain mired in poverty, unemployment, and slum housing.
Hispanics are the most rapidly increasing minority in the United States. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, they have passed African Americans as the largest minority in the United States and are expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than the mainstream, increasing from over 40 million in 2005 to 88 million by 2050, when one of every four to five Americans is expected to be Hispanic. Sixty percent of the Hispanic population are descendants of the Mexican settlers and American Indians of formerly Mexican territory from Texas to California, but the remaining 40% are divided among recent immigrants from Mexico (66%), Puerto Rico, (9%), Cuba (4%) and from 21 other countries of the Caribbean and Central and South America (21%). Hispanics are far from homogeneous. Many Cubans came from middle-class backgrounds and have moved much more rapidly into positions of political and business leadership than those who came from the Mexican peasant and labor class. The long-established Hispanics of New Mexico contain a small elite of Spanish descent from whom some of the governors of the state have come; they are far different from working-class Puerto Ricans or Dominicans of New York City. An immigrant Chilean engineer of European descent has little in common with the former Indian peasant from Nicaragua or El Salvador (Estrada, un-dated). Hispanics are concentrated in New Mexico (41% of the population), California (32%), Texas (30%), Arizona (23%), Nevada (17%) and 15% in Florida, New York, and Colorado. They are highly urbanized. Forty-five percent live in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, San Francisco, San Jose, and Chicago. “To build a political base and influence, (many) Latino leaders concentrate their work in populated areas dealing with critical issues that proliferate in urban settings” (Bordas, 2001, p. 125). But they have also led the unionizing of agricultural workers. The rate of employment for Hispanics without college is about the same as for mainstreamers (Boo, 2004).
Half of Hispanics are less than 25 years old. Education is a critical issue. Their average educational attainment is low, and their high school dropout rate is high. Latino students have the highest high school dropout rate of all racial and ethnic groups. Disparities in educational attainment begin in kindergarden. Hispanics are handicapped by family responsibilities, poverty, poor schools, placement in lower-track classes, poor self-image, limited neighborhood resources, lack of role models, and negative gender role attitudes (Zambrana & Zoppi, 2002). According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 57% of Hispanics had graduated from high school and 10% from college, compared to 88% of whites graduating from high school and 28% of whites graduating from college. The figures for blacks were 79% and 17%, respectively. Females headed 24% of Hispanic families, compared to 13% of white families. Poverty rates are disproportionately high. In 1999, median family income for Hispanic married couples was $37,132, for non-Hispanic whites was $59,697, and for blacks was $50,656. Most generally, Hispanics are employed in manual labor, service, and support, although in 2000, 15% of Hispanics were employed as executives, administrators, or managers and another 13% as professionals (National Council of La Raza, NCLR, 2004). An estimated 11 million Hispanics have entered the United States illegally in 2006, mainly by crossing the porous border with Mexico. These work as unskilled labor in agriculture and industry, often for less than the legally required minimum wages.
Despite their diversity of race, origin, and socioeconomic status, Hispanics share cultural commonalities that are likely to affect their emergence and success as leaders, as well as their attitudes and performance as subordinates. They are more likely to be found in service and manual labor jobs and to face poverty and language barriers. In large proportions, they are newcomers, and average nine years younger than the general population. We can infer how Hispanics differ from Anglo mainstreamers in their attitudes and behavior as leaders and subordinates from how they differ from mainstreamers in selected attitudes and values that are likely to affect leader-subordinate interactions (Bordas, 2001)
“Three dynamics … position Latinos for leadership. Personalismo is … needed to earn the trust and respect of followers. Tejando lazos (weaving connections) describes leaders as storytellers, keepers of cultural memory, dream weavers, and dream makers … The third dynamic … is knowing how to foster consensus and encouraging collective action” (Bordas, 2001, p. 112). Hispanics are diverse in history and color. Their classification requires answers to two questions, since they can vary in identification in both race and ethnicity (Kirnan, Bragge, DeNicolis, et al., 2001) But they are bound together by the Spanish language, colonization, the Catholic Church, and diverse indigenous roots. They value confianza, respeto, and being simpático. A leader with confianza is trustworthy, someone in whom you can confide. A survey of 3,000 Latinos by the National Community for Latino Leadership (NCLL) found that keeping one’s word, doing what you say you will do, and fulfilling promises were the most valued qualities in Latino leaders. Traditionally, respeto, deference and respect, was shown to those of higher status and authority by body language, tone of voice, and manners and by offering profuse thanks, praise, and apologies. According to the NCLL survey, leaders need to be unselfish, empathetic, courteous, and respectful. Latino leaders are expected to be simpático. Their social relations should be congenial and pleasant. They relate first on a personal level, focusing on “the individual, the family, where people are from, and personal preferences. … Being polite and gracious … are just as important as having many achievements” (Bordas, 2001, pp. 116–117). More collectivistic than individualistic,10 compared to mainstream Americans, an individual Hispanic who is faced with a decision such as whether to join the U.S. Navy will worry about how other Hispanics view the action. Other Hispanics are not likely to favor such a decision, and the individual will worry about how this disfavor will affect his family. Ridicule and the loss of cultural identity may be seen as the price of entry into mainstream organizations (Triandis, 1981).
Importance of la Familia. Leaders of Hispanics must shape organizations to retain relations and personal connections. Of particular importance is the family. In contrast to mainstream Americans, Hispanics are more intensely attached to their nuclear and extended families and more concerned about meeting family obligations and sacrificing their own interests for the sake of their families. Compared to the strong pull of the family, they are ambivalent about work environments (Triandis, Marin, Hui, et al., 1982). They do not separate their professional and personal lives. Trusted leaders are regarded as part of their extended family of intimate friends and godparents. Leaders of Hispanics “are challenged to fashion” organizations that remain “user friendly” and keep the family as the “bridge … to the impersonal institutions of society” (Bordas, 2001, p. 125).
Collectivism. In her dissertation survey of 377 Latina U.S. Army officers, Zoppi (2004) found that collectivistic attitudes headed one of two canonical roots (correlations with other variables). Hispanics have difficulty separating the person from the role taken by the person (Rojas, 1982). Likely to affect their performance as leaders, they tend to emphasize cooperation and assistance as opposed to competition and rivalry (Triandis, Ottati, & Marin, 1982). They are more optimistic about interpersonal interactions but less likely to feel that criticism by another person will be constructive (Triandis, Marin, Lisansky, et al., 1984). Latino leaders have a sense of destiny. They feel that chance, unforeseen events, and outside forces govern their lives. A greater power guides their efforts, unlike mainstream leaders who are more likely to value self-determination and their own individual efforts (Bordas, 2001).
The collectivist values to which Hispanics subscribe, more than do those in the mainstream, that are likely to affect their performance as leaders include being sensitive, loyal, respected, dutiful, gracious, and conforming. Mainstreamers are more likely to emphasize being honest and being moderate (Triandis, Kashima, Lisansky, et al., 1982). Hispanics have the highest participation of any minority in the U.S. labor force. They do not shy away from manual labor as beneath their dignity. Leaders are expected to help with onerous work when necessary. Other important values for Latino leaders include making time for socializing, and sharing. The NCLL survey indicated that Latino leaders needed to express compassion, kindness, and affection. Other ethnics and mainstreamers might be made uncomfortable by the extent to which Latinos are encouraged to express their feelings and emotions, which can result in misunderstandings (Bordas, 1994). To enjoy life is an important value. They commemorate many occasions and spend more on entertainment, movies, food, and eating out than do mainstreamers. They arrange community celebrations and fiestas, and entertain family and friends. They try to balance work with time for having fun (Bordas, 2001). At the same time, there is considerable spirituality among them. “Spirituality for traditional Latinos is a mixture of indigenous beliefs and the influence of the Catholic Church. … When Latinos marched in support of the farm workers’ rights … they went in procession with a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe leading the way” (p. 127).
The attitudes and values of loyalty of Mexican Americans to their ethnic group are factorially independent of their cultural awareness. Arbona, Flores, and Novy (1995) surveyed 364 technical college and university students in south Texas. Two factors emerged in their responses to the questionnaire: (1) ethnic loyalty concerned the students’ preference for one culture over another, (2) cultural awareness involved knowledge and practice of cultural traits.
These analyses, mainly of male Hispanics, do not account for the greater acceptance of responsibilities and leadership in school sports by lower-class Puerto Rican girls in comparison to their matched black or white lower-class counterparts. Klonsky (1987) attributed such results to the closer attention that Puerto Rican girls receive from their overprotective mothers (as observed by Cahill, 1967) and less neglect of them by their fathers than is true for other lower-class children. In general, socialization is greater among Puerto Rican girls than among their black or white classmates.
Leadership. Hispanics are more likely than mainstreams to favor supervisors who provide social support and consideration even if the supervisors are not well organized (Triandis, Hui, Lisansky, et al., 1982). Supervisors are likely to find it useful to keep in mind that some Hispanic subordinates may be hostile to and distrustful of non-Hispanics and the establishment. According to a survey of 139 Hispanic workers by Sanchez and Brock (1996), they may feel discriminated against, resulting in tensions at work, job dissatisfaction, and lack of organizational commitment. For Hispanic workers, links between behavior and reward are less clear. They are likely to be ambivalent about their self-esteem and see themselves as a bundle of roles, rather than as a bundle of traits. They tend to accept and favor social, sex, and power differentiation and will tolerate inefficiency. Furthermore, they are likely to view competence in a task to be less important than agreeableness, conscientiousness, and getting along with others, and will favor equality over equity. In addition, they will tend to favor group over individual assignments but may not necessarily value participative decision making (Triandis, 1984). Consistent with finding that like leadership in many collectivistic cultures, Zoppi (2004) showed that Latina army officers described themselves as more transformational than U.S. norms. They also said they were less passive leaders.
Some evidence has accrued about the impact of black or white supervisors on mixed Hispanic-mainstream groups. For example, Hill and Fox’s (1974) examination of the extent to which black and white squad leaders reprimanded or praised their black, white, and Puerto Rican subordinates found that the squad leaders treated all their subordinates similarly. As was noted earlier, although it was expected that one minority group would favor another, Parker (1976) found that Mexican-American subordinates of black and of white industrial supervisors gave the white supervisors significantly higher ratings on support, emphasis on goals, and facilitation of work and interaction than they did their black supervisors.
Among the best-known Hispanic leaders was César Chávez. He embodied leadership that was attuned to the needs of the Hispanic farmworker. As a child, he followed his parents into the fields as a migratory farmworker and witnessed the inhumane treatment of farm labor. He believed strongly in participative leadership. To be successfully unionized, he believed, farmworkers must build and control their organization. There had to be collaboration between the leader and the led. He adapted Saul Alinsky’s approach that workers themselves could identify problems and come together to solve them. They could be the source of new ideas and directions. He encouraged workers to take on leadership roles, telling them that good organizers were not afraid to make mistakes. He uplifted the Latinos as no one had before. He made use of Latino rituals, ceremonies, language, dress, religious ceremonies, and prayer meetings (Martinez-Cosio, 1996).
Considered our model minority, Asian Americans have burst into the U.S. scientific and professional community in record numbers, although they made up only 1.5% of the population in 1980. Asian Americans are likely to be as collectivistic as Hispanics (Hsu, 1981), with a strong sense of family obligations and concerns about their own acculturation. Again, they are diverse in national origin and ethnicity. But Asian Americans suffered from institutionalized legal impediments of state and national restrictions and still suffer from the stereotype that all Asian Americans are foreigners (Locke, 2000). J. Tang (1997) argues that despite their success in science and professional careers, they remain less able to move into management compared to African Americans and whites. In surveys, like Hispanics and blacks they reported more discrimination against them than whites and were more favorable to affirmative action programs than were mainstream whites (Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 1997).
Chinese immigrants first arrived in California in the early 1800s. In the 1848 gold rush, they prospected, mined, and formed a significant source of labor and services. They set up the first school for Chinese children in San Francisco in 1857. The Naturalization Law of 1790 had reserved naturalized citizenship for whites only, and beginning in 1882, further immigration of Chinese and their naturalization were prohibited by the Chinese Exclusion Act. Citizenship was restricted to those of Chinese descent born in the United States until that act was repealed in 1943. (The Cable Act of 1922 had declared that any American woman who married an alien ineligible for citizenship would lose her own.)
The Japanese first immigrated as contract laborers to the then-independent Hawaii after the Chinese, and later followed them to the U.S. West. However, all Asians were excluded from immigration in 1924. During World War II, 120,000 Japanese Americans, two thirds of them citizens born in the United States, were interned in detention camps.
The first Korean workers arrived in Hawaii in 1900; the preponderance of Koreans came to the U.S. mainland during and after the Korean War, which ended in 1953. The same was true for the Vietnamese during and after the end of the war in Vietnam, which ended in 1975 (Chan, 1991). Between 1944 and 1952, all the exclusion orders were repealed. Small quotas were established for Asian Indians and Filipinos, 5,000 highly educated Chinese residing in the United States, and war brides of Asian-American veterans. Not until 1965 was immigration based on national origin abolished. Other immigrants from Asia, such as the Vietnamese, share many values with the Chinese and have similar cultural attitudes.
Management and Leadership. In 1985, Asian Americans constituted 8% of the professionals and technicians in the United States but made up only 1.3% of the managers and executives. Some of this difference may be due to racial prejudice, but some may also be due to the ambivalence of Asian Americans toward integration and socialization into the American mainstream’s values, attitudes, and behaviors. Conflict is due to a cultural background that stresses modesty and the stereotype of Asian Americans as being passive and retiring rather than having the assertiveness needed for leadership (Yu, 1985). Kelsey (1998) found that when she studied small mixed groups of Chinese and white males, in all the groups, the Chinese had less influence than the whites. Whites were more talkative than the Chinese Americans and whites became the leaders. Nonetheless, in 1946, Wing F. Ong became the first Asian American to be elected to a state office (the Arizona House of Representatives). Starting in the 1960s, Daniel Inouye began a long career as a U.S. senator and Spark Matsunaga and Patsy Mink as representatives from Hawaii in the U.S. Congress (Chan, 1991). Asian Americans serve in state legislatures and as governors from Alaska to California.
With their family and peer support for education, their large overrepresentation at leading American universities, and their acceptance as professionals and technicians, they are likely to experience an upward trend in such employment unless a backlash occurs. But their movement into management in proportions representative of their numbers in technical and professional work is likely to lag, despite Agor’s (1986a) finding that, along with women, Asian Americans in general have more intuitive ability than mainstreamers, which is critical for decision making at higher levels of management. As managers, compared to whites, they reported using less self-disclosure, less self-focused impression management, and less supervisor-focused management. Instead, they tended to employ job-focused impression tactics, but their supervisors said they were not impressed. Furthermore, Asian Americans don’t do as much impression management to improve supervisor-subordinate relations as do whites (Xin, 1997). According to Yammarino and Jung (1998), Asian American collectivism is likely to show up in the better or worse treatment of the entire group of followers by their leader, rather than as in each different dyad formed by a white leader with different individual white followers. Jung (1997) compared the performance of 153 Asian American and 194 white American undergraduate students by subjecting them to transformational and transactional leadership simulated by trained actors. Along with the expected positive direct effects on both cultural groups, transformational leadership had indirect effects mediated by the collective efficacy among the Asian Americans, while transactional leadership had stronger effects on the performance of the white students.
Jung and Yammarino (2001) compared 105 Asian American business students in 30 groups and 31 white American business students in a group task to prepare an essay recommending how to improve the quality of the education provided by the business school so it could be reaccredited. A project manager was provided to each group, whose style and effects were rated by the students afterward. As hypothesized, the correlation between the rated transformational leadership of the manager and the perceived potency of the group and effectiveness of the manager were much stronger for the Asian American students than for the white students, whereas the correlation between the transformational leadership of the manager and the followers’ self-efficacy was much stronger for the whites than for the Asian Americans. Jung and Avolio (1998) subjected 153 Asian Americans and 194 whites (mainly students) to a brainstorming task. Compared to whites, Asian Americans generated more ideas when working with a transformational leader than did whites. Collective efficacy mediated the impact of transformational leadership on the Asian Americans but not the whites.
More Asian American leaders are needed in both the public and private sectors, according to the state of Washington’s first Chinese American governor, Gary Locke (2000). They are needed: (1) to fight for education, (2) to combat the collective punishment of an entire racial or ethnic group for individuals’ actions, (3) to combat hate crimes, (4) to speak out against prejudice, and (5) to protect the rights of immigrants. More leadership is needed to provide “a more vibrant and healthy Asian American community” (p. 1).
Along with many other important immigrant groups to the United States, we will have to depend mainly on Chapter 33 to consider how the nationality of their origins affects their attitudes and behaviors as leaders and followers. South Asian Americans have become prominent as small-business entrepreneurs and in the health care industries. Additionally, Indian immigrants have become important to U.S. high tech and higher education.
The Iroquois constitutional arrangement for a council of representatives from the six tribes was well known to Benjamin Franklin and provided him with a model at the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787. Prominent American Indian leaders were Chief Sitting Bull, medicine man of the Lakota Sioux; Chief Joseph of the Nez Percé; Chief Seattle of the Suquamish and Duwamish; Chief Tecumseh of the Shawnee; Chief Pontiac of the Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibwa confederacy. They were were known for their eloquence, political acumen, strategic thinking, and ability to mobilize movements.
Billy Frank Jr., a Nisqually tribal elder, is a wide-ranging contemporary Indian leader and visionary. Starting as a youth, he was active in the “fishing wars” with state game wardens and police until the historic 1974 Boldt decision in U.S. District Court upheld Indian treaty fishing rights. As of 2003, he was serving as the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, which he cofounded. He presided over the restoration of the salmon industry, essential to tribal tradition (Adams, 1984, p. 1). The commission represents 20 tribes in Washington state. His peacemaking program has been a model for several other states. He has also played an important role in the WaHeLut school with students from 22 Indian nations. He was involved as a leader in cooperative management environmental agreements dealing with wildlife and water resource planning. In 1976 he worked with the timber industry and the Washington state government to change logging and spraying practices, which helped the comeback of the bald eagle. In 1984, he helped found the Northwest Renewable Resources Center, which mediates natural resources conflicts in six states. In 1989, as chairman of the Native American Committee of the Washington State Centennial Commission, he argued for celebrating future rather than past Indian interests. In 2003, he declared that Indian tribes have emerged as a political force to be reckoned with.
Identity. Native Americans are extremely varied in cultures and values, although they have some values in common. They now constitute more than 300 self-determined nations with sovereignty, and many smaller tribes. They vary in race from white to black because of their traditional tendency toward inclusiveness and inter-breeding. Cheyennes intermarried with Arapahoes, Ojib-ways with Crees, Choctaws with Chickasaws, and so on. One of the spouses would join the other tribe’s family, depending on whether it was patrilinear or matrilinear. It was the same for offspring. Adoption of outsiders, individual or groups, was widely practiced. One third of Seminoles are partly descendents of runaway black slaves. Many Indians have En glish or French surnames going back to early colonial times. Those of mixed race sometimes identify with Indians, sometimes with whites or blacks. John Ross, the seventh-eights white son of a Cherokee and a fully white mother, led the Cherokees for 20 years in their losing effort to avoid forced resettlement in Oklahoma by the federal government in 1838. John Ridge, one-eighth white and seventh-eighths Cherokee, opposed Ross and led the accommodationist faction supporting the move. This was a cause of divisiveness lasting for several generations. Jim Beckworth, a full-blooded black adopted by the Crows, eventually became a chief.
Nevertheless, strongly influenced by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) personnel, the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act called for constitutions for each tribe that defined as Indian racially those at least one fourth Indian in ancestry. In the 1960s, the U.S. government turned many Indians into non-Indians by unilaterally dissolving 103 Indian groups, such as the Mission Bands of California. Enacted in 1990 but not enforced was congressional legislation to limit Indian identity for arts and crafts to only those created by members of federally recognized tribes. The 1975 constitution of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma was the only one to abandon race as a criterion for tribal membership and to return to the traditional Indian openness to enrollment as a tribal member. Formal Cherokee membership grew from 10,000 in 1950 to over 300,000 in 1998. In 1990, self-identification as an Indian could range from 2 million, based on the 1990 U.S. Census, to an unofficial 30 million (Churchill, 1998).
Deculturation and Assimilation. Until the 1930s, federal policy was directed toward deculturation and assimilation. While most Indians lived on reservations in 1900, less than 45% do so now. Some now live on farms and ranches. A larger portion live in cities. Many whose homes are on reservations work in the cities. The movement from reservations was encouraged by the 1887 General Allotment Act, which replaced collective ownership of land with individual allotments. Of the 150 million acres of Indian lands, 50 million were allocated to Indians and 100 million were opened to others (Churchill, 1998). No provision was made for any increase in population. Many Indians were completely impoverished. According to Adams (1984), many living on reservations became depressed and apathetic. Many others assimilated and faded into the general population. But the change in America in attitudes toward minorities beginning with the Roosevelt administration (1933–1945) and developments such as fair employment practices, racial integration of the U.S. Army in 1948, and the civil rights legislation of 1965 improved their chances for better incomes, social, and educational condition. Recent years have seen marked improvements, but Native Americans’ health, educational levels, and incomes still fall below the mainstream. Many state, federal agencies and NGOs are still directed at the uplift of Native Americans.
Native American names and cultural and spiritual symbols have been adopted by professional sports teams, schools, universities, Hollywood, and corporations. The Washington Redskins and the Atlanta Braves were seen as racist and belittling to Indians by the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media. Students on college campuses helped eliminate attaching the name “Indian” to the Dartmouth and Stanford University teams. Unfair stereotypes and disrespect for Indian nation sovereignty are fostered by the Cleveland Indians baseball fans’ supportive gesturing of “scalping” and Braves fans “tomahawk chop.” Treating Indians as mascots, and offensive usage of Indian names and symbols are being fought in courts and boardrooms (Teters, 1999). Until the 1950s, Indians were portrayed in the movies and on television as treacherous villains.
Education. Pavel (1999) commented that starting in the 1860s, federal boarding schools were inaugurated to convert Indians from their tribal cultures to the mainstream culture. The model was Carlisle, founded in Pennsylvania in 1875. The students, all male, were expected to learn Christian morality and the benefits of private property. They had to cut their long hair and dress in mainstream clothes. They were forbidden to speak their native tongue and were taught En glish, mathematics, and a trade to instill the work ethic. The forced transfer of children from tribal homes to boarding schools was strongly resisted. By 1997, this model had long since been abandoned. A comprehensive survey completed by the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) found that 47% of the almost half-million Indian and Alaskan Native American youth were concentrated in 1,244 public schools and 170 BIA schools, out of approximately 82,900 schools nationwide. “This relatively small number of schools enrolling a relatively large number of Native American students has provided fertile ground to improve Indian education. Exemplary programs have advanced Indian education throughout the nation. … A growing number of schools have dramatically improved academic achievement among Native students” (p. 2). BIA students are required to pass more coursework in English, mathematics, social studies, and the sciences than are public school students. Stricter graduation requirements are observed. In 1989, graduation rates were 82% in BIA schools and 91% in public schools with concentrations of native students. Thirty-three percent of BIA graduates applied for admission to college. The marked advances in native education in the 1980s and 1990s are seen by Pavel, Swisher, and Ward (1996) as a consequence of tribal self-governance and national school movements.
In BIA tribal schools, traditional culture and values are incorporated into the curriculum. One-third of BIA students speak their native language at home; 16% in public schools with high concentrations of natives do so, as well. Almost half of teachers and principals are cultural role models as they identify as American Indians or Alaska natives, and virtually all of them are enrolled in a state or federally recognized tribe. In public schools with high concentrations of native students, 13% identify themselves as tribal members. Thirty-eight percent of BIA teachers are native, most of them members of a tribe. In schools with concentrations of native students, 15% of the teachers are natives, a majority enrolled as tribal members (Pavel, 1999).
A number of major universities such as Penn State, Ohio State, and Arizona State now offer graduate education to prepare American Indians and Alaska natives for leadership in their nations. Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government offers a graduate program dealing with research and executive education to take account of Indian nation sovereignty, institutions, culture, and social and economic development.
Leadership and Management. More than 300 self-governing sovereign Indian nations within the 50 states are federally recognized as democratic entities with their own constitutions. Only the federally recognized tribes can participate in federal housing, health, and education programs and maintain their government-to-government relation with the federal government (Echohawk, 1990). Such recognition of sovereignty has permitted the establishment of gambling casinos on tribal land when it is illegal elsewhere in a state. Gambling casinos have turned poor Indian nations into wealthy ones (Wall Street Journal, 2004) and enhanced resources for health, education, and welfare. The often large casino revenues have also increased the potential for corrupt leadership. There have been abuses of power by the governing bodies of reservations. They have muffled criticism of mishandling millions of dollars of tribal money. A report by The Detroit News (2001) detailed abuses of democracy, judicial process, and financial benefits by the leaders. They used their power to expel political opponents and to change the election rules to favor themselves.
The observed leadership tends to differ from one Native American tribal culture to another. Although in most tribes men are the leaders, women play a more important role among the matrilinear tribes such as the Navajo. Warner (1989) completed a study of American Indian female supervisors and their stereotypes.
Anthropological reports sift out the patterns of consequence. Illustrative was a study by Dekin (1985) of the Inupiat of northern Alaska, who live in the Point Barrow area.11 Dekin observed that in community meetings, Inupiat leaders need to conform to Inupiat social norms, which would confuse unsophisticated mainstream Americans. Indulgence, indifference, acquiescence, noncompetitiveness, and tolerance are highly valued among the Inupiat and socialized in childhood. These deeply held values are reflected in the unwillingness to impose one’s will on others to divert or correct them, particularly if others have already expressed their points of view. Community development and planning among the Inupiat are particularly difficult because of traditional leadership patterns; whoever speaks first determines what will be accepted. Avoidance of conflict and an unwillingness to impose on others or to correct them are the rule. Those with recognized leadership roles, such as the city mayor, must speak first. In public meetings, others are reluctant to disagree with the leaders, so all acquiesce even though they do not privately agree. The followers are tolerant but uncommitted. Elections and secret balloting can produce results that diverge markedly from what was expressed openly at public meetings. Some politicians and administrators take advantage of these norms by obtaining a false consensus in public hearings, despite the fact that if private voting had been allowed, quite different opinions would have been revealed.
The Inupiats’ tolerance and indulgence of deviation by followers may be misinterpreted by outsiders as apathy. Rather, these traits represent their reluctance to impose decisions on others, if decisions are made at all. Decisions, which must be made by a single leader, are consciously avoided, if possible, even if doing so means delays or inaction. The Inupiat norms also mean that public safety officers, clerks, and accountants, who must abide by impersonal rules of enforcement in the face of differences of opinion, cannot be selected from among the Inupiat.
To the original European immigrants to North America from the British Isles and northern Europe have been added diverse ethnic groups from southern and eastern Europe. Prominent among these immigrants and their descendants are Italian Americans. More than five million Italians emigrated to the United States, mainly from the south of Italy and Sicily, fewer from Rome and the North. In the 1990 Census, the approximately 16 million Italian Americans formed 6% of the U.S. population. Although a majority of the first generation were manual laborers, by 1990 two thirds held white-collar jobs and had moved rapidly into positions of leadership in government and industry. This section points to some elements that may continue to contribute to the leadership and follower performance of Italian Americans. There is a paucity of controlled research on what may distinguish their leadership from the mainstream. Just as American Indians were stereotyped until the 1950s as villains in the movies and television, so Italian Americans were stereotyped in entertainment and by widely publicized accounts of the Mafia as members of organized crime families. Although there has been some immigration of educated middle-class Italian professionals from northern Italy, the large preponderance of Italian immigrants were uneducated peasants from southern Italy and Sicily whose children in the United States moved rapidly into the middle class and a broad range of occupations and professions.
Social Beliefs. Prud’homme and Baron (1988) found that Italian Canadians have a pattern of irrational beliefs that are likely to influence their interactions with others and that are different from the beliefs of En glish Canadians. Social approval (“It is essential that one be loved or approved of by virtually everyone in his community”) was more fully endorsed by the Italian Canadians than the En glish Canadians in their study. This need for social approval is consistent with Rutonno and McGoldrick’s (1982) finding that Italian Americans tend to build a network with relatives of the same age, however distant. In contrast to the beliefs of En glish Canadians, those of Italian Canadians contained more irrational fatalism (“Unhappiness is caused by outside circumstances, and the individual has no control over it”). This finding by Prud’homme and Baron fit with the sense of resignation to events that Spiegel (1982) observed among Italian ethnics. Prud’homme and Baron also found irrationally high self-expectations in their Italian Canadian sample (“One must be perfectly competent, adequate, and achieving to consider oneself worthwhile”) and a necessity for perfect solutions (“There is always a right or perfect solution to every problem, and it must be found or the results will be catastrophic”). There are other elements that may be of consequence to leadership among those who identify with their Italian American heritage. For example, the Italian American community tends to be as cohesive as is the Italian American family, with its emphasis on strong family ties (Ziegler & Richmond, 1972).
Leadership Status. Italian Americans have moved into top leadership positions in every walk of American life, as witnessed by Lee Iacocca in industry; Amadeo Giannini in banking; football coach Vince Lombardi; Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court; Mario Cuomo in politics; Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and Frank Capra as movie directors; Arturo Toscanini as a symphony orchestra conductor; and A. Bartlett Giamatti, as both president of Yale University and commissioner of Major League Baseball. On the local level there are many Italian Americans politicians, such as Fiorello La Guardia, who became mayor of New York with the help of a strong Italian American voting bloc but was reelected on his own merits alone. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City attained his political success by his performance as U.S. Attorney and his national prominence by his pseudotransformational leadership following the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Italian Americans played an important role in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democratic Party coalition of ethnic groups, but by the years following World War II, as their social and economic status rose, they became equally likely to support Republican politicians.
Italian Americans have showed up in leadership roles in increasing numbers. In 1950, 6% of the members of the New York State legislature were Italian Americans; in 1994, they made up 34% of the members, far exceeding their proportion of the state’s population (Primo, 2003). Italian Americans elected as U.S. Republican and Democratic senators in recent years include Peter Domenici, Alfonse D’Amato, and Rick Santorum. State governors include Ella Grasso of Connecticut and Richard Celeste of Ohio. In addition to New York City, other cities that have elected Italian Americans as mayors include San Francisco (George Mosconi), Philadelphia (Frank Rizzo), and Boston (Thomas Menino). Geraldine Ferraro, a U.S. congress member, was the first woman to be nominated as a vice presidential candidate in 1984.
There are curious anomalies. For example, Italian Americans constitute 26% of Roman Catholic Church membership but only 8% of its leadership. In the private sector, 12% of the CEOs in the Fortune 500 firms have Italian surnames, twice their proportion in the general population, but they total only 3% of senior managers and are overrepresented in middle management. Corporations founded by Italian Americans, such as Bank of America and Planters Peanuts, have none on their executive boards. Chains featuring Italian American food products, such as the Olive Garden and Domino’s Pizza, were not founded by Italian Americans, nor do they have any Italian-surnamed senior executives (Italic Institute of America, 2004). In the 1960s, Italian Americans were considered a potent source of elected political leaders. However, assimilation, unrelenting media defamation, and stereotyping in the movies (The Godfather) and television (The Sopranos) have drained away their potential. Mario Cuomo, an exceptional speaker and popular reelected New York governor, was reported to have turned down the nomination for presidential candidate in 1988 because he didn’t think anyone with an Italian name could be elected (Italic Institute of America, 2002).
A national Jewish population survey (2000–2001) estimated that 2.2% to 2.5% of Americans were Jewish. This was much lower than the median estimate of 18% believed to be the case by both Jews and non-Jews, according to a 1990 national Gallup sampling of the general population. Three percent estimated that 50% or more were Jewish. Even 18% of Jews projected themselves as making up more than 15% of the U.S. population. Except for the recent immigration of Russian Jews, their numbers are not likely to grow much. As of 1996, 53% to 54% had intermarried with gentiles. Three quarters of the children of mixed marriages are not raised as Jewish, and 86% of these children marry gentiles. From colonial times, Jews have been disappearing into the American mainstream culture. Much of the overestimation is probably due to their eminence in science, medicine, law, education, literature, art, music, entertainment, and communications, and their prominence in American life as candidates for national office, such as Joseph Leiberman, as secretaries of state, such as Henry Kissinger, as senators, such as Dianne Feinstein, as governors, such as Herbert Lehman, as financiers, such as George Soros, and as program directors, such as Robert Oppenheimer and Hyman Rickover of applications of nuclear energy.
Identity. Identity is a problem. Jews are an ethnic group supposedly identified by religion, yet the 2001 national survey found that 27% of those who identified themselves as Jews said they had no religious preference, compared to 14% of non-Jews who said the same. Only 51% believed in Judaism. Younger Jews want to identify as an ethnic rather than a religious group. The percentage of Zionists had fallen from 90% in 1948 to 22% in 1995. Only 9.7% were Orthodox in religious practice.
Korman (1988) reviewed the research evidence on the Jewish experience in America and concluded that despite the liberalization that has occurred in the mainstream in the past half century, despite the fact that Jews have built and managed many successful organizations, despite their prominence and visibility, and despite strong family support in their development, Jewish Americans remained absent from managerial and executive roles in many of the largest and most important American industries, ranging from oil and chemicals to foods and commercial banking. Paradoxically, they serve in these same industries as professionals, staff personnel, and consultants. There is a parallel here to the experience of women in general, Asian Americans, and other minorities in the past several decades. Although American Jews have reached positions of leadership in government and in selected industries, such as retailing and the communications media, that far exceed their small percentage of the population, they still remain outsiders in their access to careers in line management in many other industries. Although Jews make up less than 2.5% of the U.S. population, 10% of college graduates identify themselves as Jewish, so it would be expected that they would be over-represented rather than underrepresented in management positions. Four decades ago, Powell (1969) found in a survey of 239 executives from a variety of industries that more than 23% said that being Jewish hindered an executive’s career, but less than 2% said that being gentile had the same impact. More than 63% thought being Jewish kept one from being promoted, compared to the 24% and 20%, respectively, who said the same about being Mormon or Roman Catholic. But the comparable figures for lack of promotability were less than 4% for Episcopalians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.
These executives did not base their opinions on lack of competence, morality, or motivation, or on outright discrimination. However, they believed that Jews, Mormons, and Catholics could not develop the network of necessary friendships inside and outside the firm as easily as could a Protestant mainstreamer and could not meet the criteria of social acceptability, compatability, and “fitting in” in the company. These beliefs, in turn, may have been supported by stereotypes, such as that Jews are overly aggressive. The continued exclusion of qualified Jews as well as Asian Americans and other ethnic minorities from line management appeared to be based primarily on the belief that they were not socially acceptable, which, in turn, reinforced the self-perceptions of the ethnics that they were outside the mainstream. Jews remained outsiders in a “Catch-22” bind: they were excluded from higher levels of management because they were not members of the right social clubs, and they were excluded as members of the clubs because they were Jews and partly because they had not attained the higher levels of management (Zweigenhaft, 1980). Quinn, Kahn, Tabor, and Gordon (1968) found that although 139 executives in the Cleveland-Akron area were generally un-prejudiced in the abstract in that they agreed that Jewish persons should be hired or promoted to important management positions on the same basis as everyone else, when it came to a concrete decision, a fifth indicated that they would choose a gentile over a Jew with equal qualifications. There also was systematic exclusion from entering the corporation at the bottom. When it was still legal to do so, 50% of the requests for management applicants to the California Public Employment Service explicitly discriminated against Jews, as did 27% in Chicago (Waldman, 1956). Most public and private employment agencies in many other cities continued to accept such open discriminatory requests well into the 1960s.
Jewish executives are likely to be found in representative numbers more often in sales functions and in states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Illinois that have large Jewish populations. But they were less likely to be promoted to higher positions in corporate headquarters in the 1960s and 1970s. And they were still highly underrepresented on corporate boards of directors (Korman, 1988). However, by the mid-1980s, much depended on differences in industries and specific firms. For example, 27% of senior managers in the apparel industry are Jewish, as are 21% in retail and supermarket chains and 10% in textiles and publishing, but 8% in the aerospace industry and the soap and cosmetics industries, and less than 1% in the petroleum industry. Within industries, they were more prevalent in the smaller firms. And when they did attain top management positions, it was because of their status as founding entrepreneurs or investors, or their staff or outside status and professional accomplishments as lawyers, accountants, scientists, or engineers, not their promotion through line management (Korman, 1988).
Despite all the progress of the past half-century in moving minorities into positions of business and industrial leadership, company policies can still account for much of the continuing discrimination. The exclusion of Jews from entry into line management in industries with few Jewish executives can also occur as a consequence of a corporate policy not to recruit graduates from even highly prestigious schools with more than 30% Jewish enrollment (Slavin & Pradt, 1982) in contrast to recruiting graduates from comparable schools with low percentages of Jewish students. Corporate policy also modifies the potential of prejudicial managers to make biased decisions. Although only 29% of the managers who would prefer to discriminate against Jews in recruiting, hiring, and promotion to management positions said they would act on their biases even if they believed their company was concerned about equal opportunity, 68% would do so if they thought their company did not care (Quinn, Kahn, Tabor, & Gordon, 1968).
There is only indirect evidence about differences in the leadership and leadership preferences of Jews and gentiles. For instance, Jewish Americans are more likely to support liberal political leaders and are much less affected by their income levels in this regard than are gentiles. Higher incomes of mainstreamers ordinarily reduce liberal preferences. Ward (1965) found that when the top management of a firm was composed of Jews rather than of gentiles, the firm’s personnel policies and practices were likely to be more liberal. However, firms that had both Jewish and gentile senior managers were even more liberal.
From 1960 to 1980, an elite class of Arab Muslims immigrated to the United States from Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, and other parts of the Middle East. After 1980, they came more from the middle class, and were more alienated from Western values. They and their descendents were more interested in maintaining an Islamic way of life. By 2000, Islamic student associations were common on many college campuses. Some remained more connected to Islamic countries and under the influence of foreign imams in spirituality, culture, and politics. Alienation and discrimination increased with the “war on terror.” Younger Muslim Americans became more observant Muslims than their parents. They began to pursue Islamic traditions and practices with a social and political agenda (Abdo, 2004). More will be said about the cultural elements of Arab leadership in the next chapter.
Legally, a person has a real or perceived disability if it limits major life activities. Likely to affect the performance of physically impaired people, both as leaders and as followers, is the tendency for impaired people to cut short and distort interactions with them. Presumably, such behavior may reduce the success of handicapped people in leadership positions.12 Nonetheless, a physical impairment need not be an impediment. Franklin D. Roosevelt still provides an inspiring model of a person who lost the use of his legs at 39 years of age, midway in his political career, but was able to overcome the adversity. The deafblind Helen Keller is another such inspiration.
According to Bell, McLauglin, and Sequeira (2002), the U.S. workforce includes more than 4.5 million adults with disabilities. In 1986, of these, 46% with disabilities were able to work. By 1995, 15% were telecommuting (Kugelmass, 1995). According to Bell et al., 56% were employed in 2000. Federal legislation was enacted in 1973 to protect against discrimination of disabled government employees. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) did the same for all employees in the private sector. Nonetheless, people with disabilities work in less challenging jobs than unimpaired persons. Thirty-six percent of the disabled report having been denied an interview, promotion, or job for which they were qualified and being paid less for work similar to that of those without disabilities. But among 61 managers in the Chicago area, those who had experience hiring people with disabilities said they were more likely to hire physically impaired applicants. The disabled seen as personally responsible for their disability (e.g., deafness after playing in a rock band) are seen more negatively than people with congenital disabilities or those caused by accidents. A model of what coworkers judge as fair for accommodating workers with disabilities based on equity and need has been proposed. Managers with previous experience with the physically impaired say they are more likely to hire disabled job applicants (Messina, Roberts, & Becker, 2004), although there is consistent evidence of pervasive discrimination against highly overweight job applicants and employees (Roehling, 2002). Obese people are subjects of discrimination and are looked on less favorably by employers because of their appearance and their greater health risks. They are not shielded by federal anti-discrimination laws unless they can prove that their obesity comes from physiological causes (Roehling, 2002). Except for a few states including Michigan and California, the obese are not legally protected against discrimination by state laws. Most tend to be excluded from higher-paying occupations. Being obese is perceived by employers and supervisors as self-caused due to lack of self-control, lack of discipline, incompetence, and laziness—traits unfavorable to being recruited, hired, or promoted (Bell, McLaughlin, & Sequeira, 2002).
Some Evidence. Few controlled studies have been unearthed that compared impaired and unimpaired supervisors in their leadership of impaired and unimpaired subordinates. When 133 deaf subordinates of 21 deaf and 21 hearing supervisors described the supervisors on the LBDQ-XII in a survey analyzed by Sutcliffe (1980), no differences were revealed except that the deaf subordinates rated their deaf supervisors higher in orientation to higher authority. But Sutcliffe found in interviews that the deaf supervisors achieved the same quality of leadership as the hearing supervisors by keeping their communications short and to the point. They avoided communicating over the heads of their subordinates. Furthermore, the deaf supervisors tended to be more charismatic than the hearing supervisors.
Baker, DiMarco, and Scott (1975) noted a compensatory reaction in supervisory reinforcement of blind workers. In an experiment with subjects who acted as supervisors, the subjects were more likely to administer rewards to blind workers than to sighted workers for identical performance. In a simulation and in a field study of 41 supervisors and 220 subordinates, Colella and Varma (2001) found that with disabled subordinates, ingratiation was more strongly correlated with supervisors’ quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) ratings. The increasing availability of physical and sensory computer aids should lead to more job opportunities for the physically impaired.
The aging of the U.S. and European populations makes understanding older leaders and supervising older workers of increasing importance. Legislative sanctions against mandatory retirement have increased the average age of managers, supervisors, and employees. The working life of employees and professionals in the past century has increased from 25 to 50 years. Again, discrimination and stereotyping need to be overcome. Leaders need to be mindful of the age of their followers.
The effects of age on leadership and management are found extensively in previous chapters. With the aging of the population, the interest in, need to, and opportunity to continue working part-time or full-time for those who would have retired in their sixties have increased in the past several decades. Many large employers such as Wal-Mart have found it economically advantageous to employ part-time older workers in large numbers, although little has been published about supervising this group.
The Older Leader. Aging has some benefits for leadership. As Simon (1987) concluded, intuition depends directly on the richness of experiences.13 In a survey of 200 business school alumni, Pinder and Pinto (1974) found that older managers (aged 40 to 55), were less autocratic and more skilled in human relations, compared to younger ones (aged 20 to 29). They were also regarded as more efficient and gathered more information before making a decision. Liden, Stilwell, and Ferris (1996) noted that 122 sales representatives achieved higher levels of performance both objectively and subjectively working under older than younger supervisors. However, Campbell (1981), using a mailed survey administration of the LBDQ returned by 127 program supervisors of community mental health centers as well as by their superiors and their subordinates, obtained only slight differences in LBDQ descriptions. According to a survey of 189 nonfaculty staff members at a university, who were aged 18 to 70, LBDQ ratings of their supervisors’ initiation of structure were more predictive of the younger employees’ satisfaction. For the older workers, their supervisors’ consideration was more important (Gallagher, 1983).
The Older Subordinate. Older subordinates are likely to react differently from younger ones to different styles displayed by their leaders. Selvin (1960) examined older and younger military trainees under three types of leadership: persuasive, weak, and arbitrary. For the trainees as a whole, arbitrary leadership generated the most tension and escape activities, and persuasive leadership generated the least. Under persuasive leadership, the younger trainees tended to exhibit aggressive behavior, such as fighting with each other. Under arbitrary leadership, the younger trainees exhibited relatively personal forms of withdrawal behavior, such as attending mass entertainments and sports events and concentrating on their hobbies. Older trainees under the arbitrary leader tended to respond with anger. Liden, Stilwell, and Ferris (1996) reported that older employees performed better on both objective and subjective performance measures, but a meta-analysis by Waldman and Avolio (1986) found little difference in objective performance in studies comparing the job performance of younger and older employees. However, despite the small objective difference between the employees, the subjective performance appraisals by their supervisors were biased in favor of the younger workers. A decrease in sensory and memory functions does accompany aging, but greater experience appears to compensate for these declines.
The Generation Gap. Since the publication of the book by Strauss and Howe (1991) on the historical cycling of successive generations born 20 years apart, there has been considerable popular interest focused on the possibility of systematic changes in the managers, leaders, and followers of the traditional generation, born approximately between 1925 and 1945; the baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1965; Generation X, born between 1966 and 1985; and the millennial, or Generation Y, born between 1986 and 2005, who will be entering the workforce in 2010. Strauss and Howe proposed that the values of a generation were shaped by their first 10 years of life, as a consequence of the generation into which they were born. Most currently available empirical research compares the baby boomers and Generation X. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Gen Xers are expected to show more job mobility than baby boomers, to work to live rather than live to work, as the baby boomers do, and to prefer a relations-oriented rather than a task-oriented work environment. It may be of practical use to determine the generational attitudes and behavior, but the differences are likely to be accounted for by the fact that at any point in time baby boomers are 20 years older on average than Gen Xers. Prensky (1998) argued that the generation gap requires that personnel under 30 years of age (late Generation X) have to be treated differently from their parents by supervisors and colleagues. They have grown up with advances in technology and have different cognitive styles than older people.
Studies with No Correction for Age of the Different Generation Members. Dittman (2005) mentioned a study by Ruth Fassinger of 100 prominent women. The younger women were more likely to question workplace expectations that called for taking work home and working long hours. They expressed concern for their parenting obligations and commitments. A hundred fifty baby boomer managers and leaders were compared with 150 Generation Xers on what it took to keep them committed to their organization. The two generations mentioned the same top seven themes in the same order of importance: compensation (45% versus 34%), challenge (40% versus 33%), support (33% versus 25%), advancement (31% versus 29%), recognition (20% versus 27%), values (18% versus 21%), and organizational success (16% versus 11%) (Bryson & McKenna, 2002). A higher percentage of Gen Xers than baby boomers mentioned five of the same themes.
Rodriguez, Green, and Ree (2003) compared Gen Xers and baby boomers on five themes in a mailed survey of a representative sample of 1,000 personnel managers and executives from five levels of leadership in a telecommunications company. The response rate was 81% (805 responded). Fifty-two percent of the respondents were male, 48% female. Whites constituted 46% of the sample; African Americans, 19%; Hispanics, 29%; and Asian Americans, 5%. The survey was made up of 25 forced-choice pairs of statements, each expected to discriminate between the two generations. The statements were suggested by Bass and Avolio’s (1994) definition of transformational leadership. One of each pair was expected to be preferred by baby boomers (older in age); the other, by Gen Xers (younger in age) When forced to choose, boomers differed significantly from Gen Xers. Boomers chose tasks accomplished in several days; Gen Xers chose tasks completed in one day. Boomers (especially women and Hispanics) chose the telephone to compare prices; GenXers chose the Internet. Boomers chose regularly scheduled hours; GenXers chose flexible hours. Boomers chose retirement plans with benefits; GenXers chose a portable 401(k) plan with a lump sum distribution. Boomers chose jobs with security; Gen Xers chose jobs with challenge and fun, again not when age was controlled (p. 10). Smola and Sutton surveyed 350 baby boomers and Gen Xers again years later. They found that values changed as each generation matured. The priority given work and sense of pride in it was reduced. Self-orientation and wanting promotion more quickly increased. Loyalty to the firm decreased in the Gen Xers.
Studies Corrected for Age. Hart, Schembri, Bell, et al. (2003) collected survey data from 635 baby boomers (ages 39 to 59) and 382 Gen Xers (ages 21 to 38) from five organizations. Boomers were significantly higher than Gen Xers in organizational commitment, but the results were not at all significant when age was controlled. The same was true for rewards for loyalty, although the Gen Xers were significantly higher in belief in mobility.
Gays and lesbians are a minority protected by antidiscrimination legislation. Organizations are increasingly including sexual orientation in their diversity programs (Raeburn, 2000). Gays and lesbians may represent a larger proportion in the workforce than some other minorities included in diversity efforts (Woods, 1993). They usually discover their identity as homosexual in late adolescence or as young adults. They face societal intolerance, fear, and prejudice. In most states, they cannot marry their domestic partners nor obtain the health and social benefits provided to spouses. Homosexuals often have a negative self-image. They often lack confidence in themselves and self-efficacy and are unwilling to compete for advancement (Boatwright, Gilbert, Forrest et al., 1996). Presumably, they are less likely to attempt leadership in a heterosexual group. They choose to work in organizations that have nondiscriminatory cultures and policies. They are now more likely to be open about their sexual orientation, resulting in their greater commitment to such organizations (Day & Schoenrade, 1997).
Trau and Hartel (2002) were able to survey anonymously online 582 gay working men with the cooperation of an Australian organization of gay men. Their education ranged from high school to PhD. They came from nine states ranging from New South Wales to Western Australia. Thirty-six percent were in management and administration; 18% were in health practice; human services, or education; 9% worked in research and policy; 9% were in sales or marketing; 5% in the police or military; 3% in the arts and writing; and the rest in blue-collar and unskilled jobs. Some had disclosed their sexual orientation in their workplace; others were still closeted. In-depth interviews were also completed with career counselors involved in organizational diversity. Results indicated that gay men reporting more difficulties with their identities had lower career satisfaction and less career encouragement. Those who felt a high degree of support and help from their organization and in their career were more satisfied and committed to both. Those who reported that there was fair treatment of gays were also more committed to their organization and felt more satisfaction with their career. Comfort with their sexual identity and disclosure appeared to have little moderating effect on the results. One expected finding from the interviews was the importance of top management’s understanding of diversity issues and leadership in providing fair policies and environment in the organization from top to bottom. Ragins and Cornwall (2001) queried 534 homosexual employees and found that homosexuals were more likely to report discrimination when they had no support from organizational policies, worked in groups that were mainly heterosexual, had negative work attitudes, and received fewer promotions.
The many changes that have occurred in this area in recent years suggest the need to discount the findings of many of the earlier studies. The mainstream in the millennial generation is likely to be less prejudiced toward minorities than its predecessors. But discriminatory constraints are still apparent among African American leaders and leaders from other minorities. Leadership styles are affected by whether leaders and subordinates each are black or white. Situational constraints and personal factors may be associated with the emergence of blacks as leaders. The performance and satisfaction of black leaders depends on the extent to which their performance is contingent on the racial composition of their subordinates. The supervision of black subordinates by whites calls for whites’ understanding of the black subculture. However, more needs to be known about black leaders’ supervision of whites or mixed groups. We are just beginning to learn about Hispanics, Asian Americans, and those from other racial and ethnic groups as leaders and as subordinates. In each group, different factors may be important. Hispanics and Asian Americans share an emphasis on collectivism over the mainstream emphasis on individualism. While educational achievement is lower for blacks and Hispanics, it is higher than the mainstream for Asian Americans and for Jewish Americans, and although both groups are prominent in corporate America as staff members and consultants, they remain outsiders and are underrepresented in the seats of power in much of American industry. Equally little known but likely to increase in importance for study is the impact of age and physical impairment on supervisory-subordinate relationships when prejudice may outweigh differences in performance.
From examining leadership in subcultures of the United States, we now move on to consider how leadership and its study are affected by the cultures and nationalities of leaders and their followers.